An offprint from

INTRODUCTION1 The development of pre-state communities in the ancient Near East 1 Diane Bolger and Louise C. Maguire

PART 1: SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND COMPLEXITY IN PRE-STATE COMMUNITIES

2 Social complexity and archaeology: A contextual approach 11 Marc Verhoeven3 Late Neolithic architectural renewal: The emergence of round houses in the northern Levant, c. 6500–6000 BC 22 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans4 Abandonment processes and closure ceremonies in prehistoric Cyprus: In search of ritual 29 Demetra Papaconstantinou5 A different Chalcolithic: A central Cypriot scene 38 David Frankel6 Thoughts on the function of ‘public buildings’ in the Early Bronze Age southern Levant 46 Hermann Genz

PART 2: EARLY URBAN COMMUNITIES AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE STATE

7 The Tell: Social archaeology and territorial space 55 Tony Wilkinson8 Rethinking Kalopsidha: From specialisation to state marginalisation 63 Lindy Crewe9 From kin to class – and back again! Changing paradigms of the early polity 72 Anne Porter10 Different models of power structuring at the rise of hierarchical societies in the Near East: Primary economy versus luxury and defence management 79 Marcella Frangipane11 States of hegemony: Early forms of political control in Syria during the 3rd millennium BC 87 Lisa Cooper

PART 3: TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

12 A household affair? Pottery production in the Burnt Village at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad 97 Olivier Nieuwenhuyse13 Late Cypriot ceramic production: Heterarchy or hierarchy? 106 Louise Steel14 The domestication of stone: Early lime plaster technology in the Levant 117 Gordon Thomasvi Contents

15 Domestication of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? 123

Danielle Stordeur16 Herds lost in time: Animal remains from the 1969–1970 excavation seasons at the Ceramic Neolithic settlement of Philia-Drakos Site A, Cyprus 131 Paul Croft

PART 5: INSULARITY, ETHNICITY AND CULTURAL INTERACTION

22 Outside the corridor? The Neolithisation of Cyprus 185 Carole McCartney23 Contextualising Neolithic Cyprus: Preliminary investigations into connections between Cyprus and the Near East in the later Neolithic 197 Joanne Clarke24 Was Çatalhöyük a centre? The implications of a late Aceramic Neolithic assemblage from the 207 neighbourhood of Çatalhöyük Douglas Baird25 The birth of ethnicity in Iran: Mesopotamian-Elamite cross-cultural relations in late prehistory 217 Andrew McCarthy 1

INTRODUCTION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-STATE

COMMUNITIES IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Diane Bolger and Louise C. Maguire

Archaeological research on the small-scale societies which (for general accounts of these developments, see Triggerpreceded the emergence of the earliest states in the Near 1989, chap. 9; and Renfrew and Bahn 2000, chap. 5; forEast has a long and complex history which we cannot hope more specific critiques, see McGuire 1983; Shennan 1993;to review in detail in this brief introduction. However, it is Yoffee 1979; 1993; 2005; and Verhoeven, this volume). Animportant to situate the papers in this volume within a broad increasingly widespread attitude to neo-evolutionism amongtheoretical and methodological framework that distinguishes archaeologists today is perhaps best expressed by Yoffee,them from earlier approaches based on generic typologies who has called it “an illusion of history” (2005, 231).of social organisation and unilinear trajectories of socio- Critics of neo-evolutionism objected not only to theeconomic development. In the first section of this chapter abstract or even fictive categories of analysis that comprisewe summarise those earlier approaches and review the the band-tribe-chiefdom-state model, but also to the uni-challenges to unilinear models of social change which have linear direction of social change inherent in neo-evolutionarycontinued to emerge over the last 20–30 years. In the second thought. The assumption that cultures inevitably pass throughsection we consider some of the more recent approaches to a sequence of stages or steps from simple to complex, pre-the study of pre-state societies in the Near East which have state to state, and that this occurs in a progressive stadialeffectively replaced the earlier models and which provide fashion, is no longer accepted by archaeologists todaya backdrop for the subsequent chapters of the book; these other than in the most general terms. In addition to theare introduced in the third and final section. fact that evolutionary models cannot be sustained in the face of the detailed evidence that has accumulated over the last quarter of a century, neo-evolutionism can be regarded as a ‘meta-narrative’ that reflects the ethnocentricChallenging Traditional Models of Social bias of Western thought (Rowlands 1989, 36). As Yoffee,Transformation in Pre-state Societies Feinman and others argued, archaeologists needed to findNeo-evolutionary categories of social organisation, as alternative trajectories to social inequality and complexitydeveloped by anthropologists such as Service (1962, 1971) and to understand transitions between the two within specificand Fried (1967) and further elaborated by Harris (1979) historical contexts (Yoffee 1993; Feinman 1995, 273–294;and Johnson and Earle (1987), were based on a broad social see also Bender 1989, 87). It is now widely acknowledgedtypology (bands-tribes-chiefdoms-states) that became highly that social change among early societies such as those ofinfluential in archaeological research during the 1970s the ancient Near East is likely to have been recursive andand 1980s. While this tendency continued to some degree disruptive rather than unilinear, and that for a variety ofduring the 1990s (e.g. Maisels 1990; Earle 1997), it began reasons change occurred at different rates and in differentto fall out of use during the late 1980s as doubts arose ways from region to region and even from locality toamong archaeologists concerning the ability of a limited locality (e.g. Renfrew 1984, 358–359; Shanks and Tilleynumber of abstract societal types to account for the great 1987, 175–185; Price and Feinman 1989; Peltenburg 1993;degree of variability and heterogeneity in past societies Miller, Rowlands and Tilley 1995).2 Diane Bolger and Louise C. Maguire

In response to these and other like-minded criticisms, need to develop theories and methodologies that are moremany archaeologists have chosen to avoid the word in keeping with the nature of their own concerns, such as‘evolution’ in their research vocabulary and to replace it the study of material culture and an understanding of long-with other terms, such as ‘change’ or ‘transformation’ (e.g. term changes in human history (e.g. Plog 1974, preface andGledhill et al. 1995; Shanks and Tilley 1987), while others chap. 1; Renfrew 1984, 13; Yoffee 1993, 74; Gledhill ethave adopted multilinear models of social change which al. 1995, 27); at the same time, greater emphasis has beenhighlight the variable paths to complexity demonstrated by placed on interpreting the evidence within social, rather thanthe archaeological record (e.g. Sanders and Webster 1978; exclusively environmental or economic frameworks. WeTrigger 1985). A relatively small number of archaeologists, address some of these new perspectives in greater detail inhowever, continue to use ‘evolution’ cautiously in the belief the following section.that it still provides a useful framework for discussion ifcarefully defined (e.g. Stein and Rothman 1994; Yoffee2005). In the present volume the word ‘development’has been adopted deliberately to circumvent the more Current Approaches to Pre-state Societies:problematical connotations of ‘evolution’. ‘Development’, Diversity, Scale and Contexthowever, is not without its own connotations of progress, Over the last few decades the study of pre-state communitiesso it should be stated from the outset that the use of that in the Near East has moved significantly beyond the abstract,term in this book is not intended to imply a uni-directional stadial models of the 1970s and ’80s to adopt more nuancedtrajectory of social change. The view that ‘simple’ societies approaches based on the detailed evidence that has emergeddevelop inevitably into increasingly complex forms of social from the numerous surveys and excavations in the region.organisation needs to be investigated rather than assumed; These efforts have revealed the inability of broad typologicalcurrent approaches in archaeology acknowledge that there categories (such as band, tribe, chiefdom, state) to explainwere variable pathways to social complexity and that more the variability of social organisation and social relationsoften than not these were circuitous. present in the archaeological record and have encouraged The gradual move in archaeological interpretation away the formulation of new, socially-oriented research agendasfrom broad evolutionary models of social complexity has centred on issues of diversity, scale and context.been accompanied by a shift in focus from over-archingsystems or processes of social behaviour that emphasisesimilarities between synchronous cultures, to smaller Diversityscale research that demonstrates diversity both within and A renewed appreciation by Near Eastern archaeologists ofbetween them. At the same time, there has been a tendency the diversity of cultures, patterns of social interaction, andin recent years to question the notion that external forces trajectories of socio-economic development has emergedare primary causes of social change; while factors such from intensive fieldwork in the region during the last 25as environment, population, climate and technology are years. This has resulted from a number of factors, not theimportant ingredients in social complexity it is now widely least of which has been the extensive rescue work carriedfelt that they cannot, in and of themselves, explain social out by local and foreign teams in association with severalchange (see Bender 1978 for an early example of this view). large dam projects in south-eastern Turkey and northernA further widespread criticism of ecosystems-based research Syria, which have led to the discovery of a multitude ofis the contention that it provides a deterministic view of new sites whose developmental patterns appear to havesocial development that tends to leave people out of the differed considerably from those further to the south. Itequation (see, for example, Bender 1978; 1989; Shanks and has also resulted from the finer-grained methods of modernTilley 1987; Brumfiel 1992; Hodder 2004). archaeological fieldwork with its sophisticated means of Taken together, the challenges to neo-evolutionary recovering, recording and analysing data, and the multitudemodels briefly summarised above have resulted in the of specialists capable of generating detailed interpretationsemergence of new approaches to the study of past societies of the landscape, environment, technology, diet, materialthat are not based exclusively on theories borrowed from culture, and many other aspects of social life. Dating methodsother social sciences (particularly social anthropology), have also been refined, so that the temporal relationshipsa phenomenon which frequently “condemned the past to between sites have become more clearly visible. The resultresemble some aspect of the present” (Yoffee and Sherratt of all of these developments has been a greater emphasis1993, 8). While it is generally agreed that ethnographic on difference and diversity that has made the traditionalevidence can provide valuable insights into the behaviour and classification of societies into a limited number of ‘types’experiences of prehistoric communities, it cannot and should appear to be overly simplistic. Similarly, the diverse naturenot be applied uncritically. During the last 20 to 30 years, of the archaeological evidence for the development ofincreasing numbers of archaeologists have underscored the complex society has encouraged archaeologists investigating 1. Introduction: The development of pre-state communities in the ancient Near East 3

social change among early communities in the Near East to issues over considerable expanses of time. Exclusive focusmove beyond the broad, programmatic schemes of research on short or medium range scales fails to take full advantagebased on a single evolutionary model. As we shall discuss of the longer term trajectories that archaeological evidencelater in this section, the ability to achieve a more nuanced can illuminate and that are essential for formulatingunderstanding of early societies is most successfully achieved theories of social change on a broader scale. Moreover,by interpreting evidence within particular historical contexts while long-term developments cannot directly shape the(Hodder 1986). As Gledhill et al. have observed, “In the end perceptions and behaviours of individuals over the shortthere is no way to resolve the issue of state origins without term span of a human life, they can serve as “constrainingattempting a detailed reconstruction, via archaeological structures” that influence the range of possible behavioursmaterials, of the critical transitions which gave birth to the and choices available to individuals and communitiesfirst manifestations of ‘civilization’ ”(1995, 25). in the processes of daily life (Bintliff 1991, 7). These and other innovative applications of Annalist thinking to archaeological interpretation emphasise the multi-Scale dimensional nature of time and its variability within andThe shift in focus from general to specific and from similarity between cultures. This view of time effectively serves toto difference has underscored the importance of scale in ‘humanise’ the more abstract, objective approaches to thearchaeological research. As numerous studies over the last past by providing links between long-term trajectories offew decades have shown, greater attention to the micro-scale social change and the shorter, more subjective time scalesis crucial for looking at society from the bottom up rather of individual experience (Gosden 1994, 9).than the top down (e.g. Renfrew 1984; Renfrew and Bahn2000, chap. 5); for constructing alternative pathways to theaccumulation of wealth, power and social inequality (e.g. ContextMcGuire 1983; Bender 1989; Price and Feinman 1995); and The interpretation of evidence at different scales is closelyfor understanding the processes by which complex society related to questions of archaeological context. The viewemerged and developed (e.g. Rowlands 1989; Stein and that it is essential to interpret the past in particular historicalRothman 1994). Consequently, archaeological research has contexts (Hodder (1986, chap. 7) is now widely accepted,become more specific by investigating particular groups, and contextual approaches have proved to be one of thesub-groups and individuals, and the relationships between most successful means of overcoming the limitations ofthem, rather than focussing on abstract categories such as broad evolutionary models of social change discussed above.‘society’ or ‘culture’. Research on the micro-scale can be While context in archaeology occurs in a wide range ofapproached by a variety of methods, such as examining dimensions, including temporal, spatial, typological andthe ways in which various sectors or groups within society depositional (Hodder 1986, 125), it can also be understoodfunctioned or changed, a process Stein and Rothman refer to include the broader cultural and theoretical frameworksto as ‘organizational dynamics’ (1994, 1); focussing on the in which archaeologists interpret the past. The recognitionsocial practices of day-to-day existence (Bourdieu’s habitus; that archaeological interpretation is a process involvingsee Bourdieu 1977); looking for evidence of individuals (e.g. an interactive or dialectical relationship between theKnapp and Meskell 1997; Meskell 2002; Meskell and Joyce archaeologist and the evidence lies at the heart of current2003); or investigating changes in the human life course research programmes and marks a radical departure with(Gilchrist 1999, 88–100; 2004; Bolger 2004; 2008). All of traditional methods of archaeological inference. As Tilleythese approaches regard the seemingly mundane activities has stated, “contemporary archaeology is not a tabula rasaof daily life as essential for understanding the relationships on which the context of the archaeological record simplybetween people and the material world and demonstrate inscribes itself awaiting its meanings to be captured”the need to develop theories of social change based on (1993, 9).individuals and groups as active agents, rather than passive Interpreting evidence of past societies within broaderadapters to extrinsic environmental and economic forces. cultural and theoretical contexts places demands on Temporal dimensions of scale are equally important. archaeologists for a “comprehensive internal study ofAccording to Annalist models, social change should ideally archaeological cultures” (Trigger 1989, 350) and forbe investigated at multiple scales (short, medium and greater emphasis on the social context of cultural changelong term trajectories) that operate simultaneously. The (Price and Feinman 1995, 9). The recognition that groupscoarse chronologies that most prehistorians are compelled and individuals can bring about transformations in socialto work with seem better suited to the investigation of organisation, for example, reveals the limitations oflong-term change, yet as several archaeologists have noted processual models in which the environment was regarded(e.g. Hodder 1986, 93; Feinman 1994; Bolger 2008), few as a prime mover that motivated people to change in orderarchaeologists have specifically addressed particular social to more successfully adapt. While it is, of course, important4 Diane Bolger and Louise C. Maguire

to acknowledge the constraints placed on individuals and Part One: Social Organisation and Complexitygroups by climatic, environmental and demographic forces, in Pre-state Communitiesthe greater degree of engagement with ‘the social’ in current The first paper in this section, by Marc Verhoeven (Chapterarchaeological interpretation helps us to appreciate the 2), examines the concept of social complexity, a term whichcomplexity and indivisibility of human experience in past is still widely used by archaeologists, including many ofsocieties and to recognise the multiplicity of meanings that the contributors to this volume, to indicate differences incan result by interpreting evidence within various contextual the socio-economic structures of prehistoric communities.frameworks. He argues that words such as ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ are It is fair to assert that a different kind of archaeology value-laden terms which serve to promote the continuationhas emerged from the focus on diversity, scale and context of neo-evolutionary thinking; they can also distort ouroutlined in the previous pages. This new way of looking at the understanding of pre-state communities since variouspast (which includes but is not limited to post-processualism) aspects of ‘complexity’, such as ritual behaviour, can beincludes research on individuals, personal relations, kinship identified in some ‘simple’ Neolithic societies. The questionsrelations, social interactions, and individual and social raised in this paper form a useful framework for the moreidentities; it considers questions of status, age, gender, specific treatments of social organisation that follow.cognition, habitus, performance, the body and social memory; The other papers in this section consider variousit adopts a bottom up rather than a top down perspective; aspects of social organisation and social practice amongand it advocates a phenomenological approach centred on the particular prehistoric communities in Cyprus, the Levant,active engagement of people with their environment (Renfrew and Mesopotamia. In Chapter 3, Peter Akkermans examinesand Bahn 2000, chap. 5). All of these areas of research the shift from rectangular to circular buildings in Syro-fall within the rubric of social archaeology since to a large Mesopotamia, which began around the middle of the 7thdegree they are the result of human agency, inter-personal millennium or shortly afterwards and increased in importancerelationships and social networks. As shall become evident in during the 6th millennium. While a number of theories havethe following section, the various papers in this book can be been proposed to explain this change, Akkermans suggestsincluded in this new socially-oriented research agenda since that social characteristics, such as mobility and temporarycollectively they reflect a growing concern within the field habitation in small autonomous groups dispersed over theof ancient Near Eastern archaeology for issues of agency, landscape, are of central importance to this discussion.difference, identity, community, materiality, ritual practice In the following paper (Chapter 4) Demetra Papaconstan-and cultural interaction, as well as their variations through tinou examines the life histories of houses in prehistory,time and space. focussing in particular on evidence from the Late Neolithic site of Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi in Cyprus. After addressing issues of materiality, identity and ritual in the archaeologicalThe Development of Pre-state Communities record, she looks at the relationships between ritual andin the Near East domestic life and underscores the need for archaeologistsThe essays in this volume cover a variety of themes to look for different ways of ‘narrating’ the past by drawingrelated to the development of pre-state communities in upon multiple strands of archaeological data.Anatolia, Cyprus, the Levant and Mesopotamia. They have In Chapter 5, David Frankel presents evidence frombeen grouped, however, not by chronological period or the recently excavated site of Politiko-Kokkinorotsos ingeographical setting but according to the particular issues central Cyprus during the Middle-Late Chalcolithic periods.they address. In this way it is hoped that both the similarities After summarising the major features of the excavations,and differences in theoretical and methodological approaches and comparing the results with better-known materialadopted by authors carrying out research in different regions from the south-west of the island, he offers an alternativeof the ancient Near East can be appreciated more readily. perspective on local economic patterns, cultural regionalismThe papers in Part 1 consider aspects of social organisation and chronology on the island during the first half of the 3rdin pre-state communities while those in Part 2 investigate the millennium BC.structure of early urban communities and the development The final paper in this section, by Hermann Genz (Chapterof the state. The contributions in Part 3 examine the inter- 6), examines the interpretation of EB II–III settlements inrelationships between technology, economy and society and the Southern Levant as city-states, urban communities, orthose in Part 4 address various constructions of agency, corporate villages by questioning the function(s) of non-identity and gender. Papers in the final section, Part 5, deal domestic structures which have traditionally been regardedwith issues of insularity, ethnicity and cultural interaction. as public buildings and temples. Since a number of sitesAll of the papers are introduced briefly in the pages that in the region have buildings that do not fit neatly intofollow. these categories, the socio-political organisation of these 1. Introduction: The development of pre-state communities in the ancient Near East 5

communities is likely to have been more complex than has archaeological and textual evidence from Ebla and Marigenerally been acknowledged. in Syria to investigate the emergence and development of early Near Eastern polities. By examining the social, economic and political developments at these sites bothPart Two: Early Urban Communities before and after they exerted hegemonic authority overand the Development of the State their surrounding regions, she highlights the importance ofThe papers in this section investigate the structure and considering long-term changes in material culture in orderdevelopment of early urban communities in the Near to effectively understand patterns of behaviour associatedEast, as well as the social processes by which particular with increasing levels of socio-economic complexity.communities became, or failed to become, more complexstates. Chapter 7, by Tony Wilkinson, is concerned withthe social archaeology of the Middle Eastern tell. By Part Three: Technology, Economy and Societyexamining multiple strands of evidence (i.e. stratigraphic These chapters investigate technological and economicsequences, landscape archaeology, ethnographic evidence aspects of pre-state communities in Near Eastern societyand historical documents) Wilkinson considers the ways in within particular social and temporal frameworks. The firstwhich the settlement community as a corporate group may paper, by Olivier Nieuwenhuyse (Chapter 12), discusseshave functioned and developed through time. He concludes innovations in ceramic technology and style that transformedthat tells and the fields that surrounded them formed an ceramic assemblages across Upper Mesopotamia in the lateindivisible social and landscape unit in which the social and 7th millennium BC by focussing on pottery production ateconomic processes of everyday life were carried out. the Burnt Village of Tell Sabi Abyad in northern Syria. In Chapter 8, Lindy Crewe discusses the social and The detailed evidence for the production and use of potteryeconomic forces that led to a concentration of power within at this site indicates a complex network of intra- andthe coastal centres of Cyprus during the Late Cypriot II inter-communal relationships involving the manufacture,period by considering evidence from the site of Kalopsidha. consumption and exchange of raw materials and finishedThis small urban community in eastern Cyprus, which was products, and furnishes insights into the ways in whichlocated inland, played an important role in international material culture was used actively by pre-state communitiesrelations during the transitional Middle Cypriot III–Late to create and maintain social identities.Cypriot I period. Crewe suggests that this may be due In Chapter 13, Louise Steel considers some of theto its possible specialisation as a cult or agricultural wider issues of socio-political organisation associated withproduction centre, and that its eventual marginalisation and developments in ceramic production and craft specialisationabandonment was closely linked to the emergence of nearby in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. After examining evidence forEnkomi as a dominant urban coastal emporium. regionalism in ceramic traditions and tracing changes in The paper by Anne Porter (Chapter 9) demonstrates ceramic production through time, she concludes that priorthe limitations of traditional models of the early state for to the 13th century BC the island was divided into smallexplaining the emergence of early polities in the ancient regional groups that may reflect heterarchical rather thanNear East. On the basis of evidence concerning settlement hierarchical forms of social organisation. Only in the 13thhierarchies, settlement morphologies and burial practices and 12th centuries did ceramic production on the island cutin the Euphrates and Jazirah regions of Syria, she argues across regional boundaries, perhaps in connection with thefor kinship as a central attribute of social organisation increasingly centralised organisation of ceramic productionand explores the complex and seemingly contradictory and political control.relationships between kinship and class that lay at the heart In the following chapter (Chapter 14), Gordon Thomasof the transformation from pre-state to state level political considers the social practices and beliefs associated with theorganisation in these regions. creation and development of lime plaster technology in the In Chapter 10, Marcella Frangipane examines the Neolithic period of the Levant. Following ideas developeddialectical interplay of social and environmental factors that by Pierre Lemonnier and others, Thomas focusses on theled to the development of different economic and political social variables of lime plaster technology rather than thesystems in the prehistoric Near East. By considering evidence functional aspects of its manufacture and use, and considersfor the growth of social complexity and political hierarchy the roles it is likely to have played in ritual and cognitivein three different areas (northern Mesopotamia, southern dimensions of social behaviour at this time.Mesopotamia and western Anatolia) she demonstrates the Drawing upon Jacques Cauvin’s concept of the ‘revolutioninability of unilinear models of social change to account for of symbols’, by which he characterised the origins of thethe variable trajectories of social and economic development Neolithic, Danielle Stordeur (Chapter 15) investigatesadopted in different regions. the relationships between the use of symbols and the In the final paper (Chapter 11) Lisa Cooper looks at domestication of plants and animals in the Levant during6 Diane Bolger and Louise C. Maguire

the Pre-pottery Neolithic A and B. Differences in the the prehistoric and protohistoric periods on the island. Hersymbolic repertoires of these two periods, which involved results suggest that gender constructs changed considerablythe replacement of animal figures during the Pre-pottery over time but did not necessarily follow a straightforwardNelithic B by representations of human figures, are used path.as metaphors for shifting patterns of social and economic In the following chapter (Chapter 20), Louise Maguiredevelopment as agriculture and herding became part of moves beyond the standard typological study of prehistoriceveryday life. pottery in Bronze Age Cyprus by presenting a systematic In the final chapter of this section (Chapter 16), Paul reconstruction of the painting processes of White PaintedCroft considers patterns of animal exploitation in the Late ware. On the basis of a detailed analysis of brushstrokeNeolithic period of Cyprus by analysing faunal evidence sequences on more than 200 vessels, she shows that majorfrom the site of Philia-Drakos A, which he has examined differences existed in various regions of the island that wererecently for the first time. While Croft’s study of this the result of the positioning of the pot during the paintingmaterial is not yet complete, he postulates on the basis process, and that these practices changed over time. Theof an initial sample that the faunal patterns observed at complete transformation of communities of practice thatPhilia conform to the standard pattern of very heavily occurred at the end of the Middle Bronze Age reflects adeer dominated animal economies observed at other Late wider picture of social transformation which took place onNeolithic sites on the island. It is hoped that continued study the island at this time.of the animal remains from this important site will establish The final chapter in this section (Chapter 21), byin greater detail the ways in which various communities in Jennifer Webb, investigates the ceramic industry at theLate Neolithic Cyprus functioned and interacted. Middle Bronze Age site of Deneia in north-western Cyprus. Drawing on the extensive body of published material from the cemeteries at this site, she explores the use of form andPart Four: Agency, Identity and Gender decoration to produce the assertive ceramic style which is aThe papers in this section, which concern themes of agency, marked feature at the site and considers the ways in whichidentity and gender, address some of the current issues in community-specific styles, forms and motifs were used tocontemporary social archaeology. The first paper, by Bill craft social identities and to assert and maintain communityFinlayson (Chapter 17), adopts a ‘bottom up’ approach to affiliations.the growth of sedentism, agriculture and materiality duringthe Pre-pottery Neolithic A period. By focussing on internalsocial processes, such as agency, and considering detailed Part Five: Insularity, Ethnicity and Culturalarchaeological evidence at the local scale, he demonstrates Interactionhow our understanding of the important transformations that Like the papers in the previous section, those in thisoccurred at this time can be enhanced by looking at various final section of the book (Part 5) address issues that areways that Neolithic people inhabited their world. of current concern in social archaeology. The paper by In the following paper (Chapter 18) Stuart Campbell McCartney (Chapter 22) looks at processes of Neolithisationinvestigates the symbolic aspects of prehistoric painted in Cyprus and challenges traditional concepts of earlypottery from northern Mesopotamia. While painted decor- island communities based on a priori assumptions aboutation of the Samarran, Halaf and Ubaid periods has ‘insularity’, ‘island colonisation’ and ‘isolation’. Usingtraditionally been used to define cultural divisions or multiple strands of evidence (e.g. economic practices, stonechronological periods, little research has been carried out to tool technology and the built environment), she argues forinterpret the meaning of the motifs and designs used in this an historical approach that places Neolithic Cyprus within apottery. Campbell explores various methods of extracting wider Near Eastern context, and concludes that patterns ofmeaning from abstract geometric motifs and considers the increasing sedentism, materialism and village developmentways in which pottery can play an important role in the on the island follow similar trajectories to those observeddevelopment of social interaction and integration among in other regions of the Near East.pre-urban communities. The paper by Joanne Clarke (Chapter 23) addresses many The paper by Diane Bolger (Chapter 19) considers long- of the same issues raised by McCartney by questioningterm changes in gender and social identity in Cyprus from traditional assumptions about the ‘insularity’ of Cypriotthe Neolithic period to the Early Iron Age. After discussing communities during the later Neolithic period. Recentthe ways in which genderless narratives of the past distort research in the central Levant, she argues, warrants aour understanding of ancient societies, she argues for a reconsideration of the island’s insularity and isolation aftercontextual approach that draws upon multiple strands of the Pre-pottery Neolithic B. By looking at evidence forevidence (mortuary, figurative, material, etc.) in order to chipped and ground stone technologies, pottery manufacture,shed greater light on the changes in gender constructs during settlement organisation, economy and environment, she 1. Introduction: The development of pre-state communities in the ancient Near East 7

maintains that a complete cessation of interaction between Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge,island and mainland is a highly unlikely scenario and that Cambridge University Press.cultural connections with the Levant probably continued at Brumfiel, E. 1992. Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Breakingthis time. and entering the ecosystem − gender, class and faction steal the show. American Anthropologist 94(3), 551–567. In the following chapter (Chapter 24), Douglas Baird Earle, T. 1997. How Chiefs Come To Power: The Political Economyinvestigates the social and economic relationships between in Prehistory. Stanford (CA), Stanford University Press.the Neolithic community of Çatalhöyük and contemporary Feinman, G. M. 1994. Social boundaries and political change:settlements in the surrounding region. Through a comparative A comparative perspective. In G. Stein and M. Rothmanstudy of flint and obsidian technology, he tests the proposal (eds) Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: Themade by some archaeologists that Çatalhöyük served as a Organizational Dynamics of Complexity, 225–236. Madison,center of economic production. Since there is little evidence Prehistory Press.to suggest that Çatalhöyük played a distinctive role in terms Feinman, G. M. 1995. The emergence of inequality: A focus onof the distribution of chipped stone, he proposes that its strategies and processes. In T. D. Price and G. Feinman (eds)centrality may have had more to do with the social networks Foundations of Social Inequality, 255–279. London, Plenum.through which material flowed around the landscape and Fried, M. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York, Random House.between source area and consumption zones than with Gilchrist, R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past.centralised production. London and New York, Routledge. In the final chapter of the volume (Chapter 25), Andrew Gilchrist, R. 2004. Archaeology and the life course: A time and ageMcCarthy considers evidence for ethnicity in late prehistoric for gender. In L. Meskell and R. W. Preucel (eds) A CompanionIran through a stylistic and statistical analysis of 4th and to Social Archeology. Oxford, Blackwell.3rd millennium seals from Susa. His results suggest that Gledhill, J., B. Bender and M. T. Larsen (eds) 1995. State andtwo distinctive craft traditions at this site, a Mesopotamian Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchyand a proto-Elamite style, co-existed during the 4th and Political Centralization (1st paperback ed.; orig. hardcovermillennium and became more sharply divergent during the published by Unwin Hyman in 1988.) London, Routledge.3rd millennium. He concludes that these differences were Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford, Blackwell.based on ethnic distinctions and that ethnicity may have Harris, M. 1979. Cultural Materialism. New York, Random House.been an important aspect, or even a defining quality, of the Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches toexpression of state-level identity in Iran at this time. Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- As this body of papers demonstrates, unilinear models versity Press.of social change, which for many years were entrenched Hodder, I. 2004. The “social” in archaeological theory: Anin the archaeological literature, have undergone a profound historical and contemporary perspective. In L. Meskell andtransformation. They are being replaced by more socially- R. Preucel (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology, 23–42.oriented approaches that cannot be reduced to a single Oxford, Blackwell.explanatory model, but which embrace a wide variety of Johnson, A. W. and T. Earle 1987. The Evolution of Humantheories and methods. Through their joint concern with issues Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanfordof diversity, scale and context, they are beginning to shed (CA), Stanford University Press.new light on the ways in which pre-state communities in the Knapp, A. B. and L. Meskell 1997. Bodies of evidence on prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(2),ancient Near East functioned, interacted and changed. 183–204. Maisels, C. K. 1990. The Emergence of Civilization: From Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture, Cities and the State in the Near East. London and New York, Routledge.References McGuire, R. H. 1983. Breaking down cultural complexity:Bender, B. 1989. The roots of inequality. In D. Miller, M. Rowlands Inequality and heterogeneity. In M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances and C. Tilley (eds) Domination and Resistance. London, Unwin in Archaeological Method and Theory 6, 91–142. New York, Hyman. Academic Press.Bintliff, J. 1991. The Annales School and Archaeology. London Meskell, L. 2002. Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton, and New York, Leicester University Press. Princeton University Press.Bolger, D. 2004. Gender in Ancient Cyprus: Narratives of Social Meskell, L. M. and R. A. Joyce 2003. Embodied Lives: Figuring Change on a Mediterranean Island. Walnut Creek (CA), Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience. London, Routledge. AltaMira. Peltenburg, E. 1993. Settlement continuity and resistance toBolger, D. 2008. Introduction: Temporal dimensions of gender in complexity in Cyprus, ca. 4500–2500 B.C.E. Bulletin of the ancient Near Eastern archaeology. In D. Bolger (ed.) Gender American Schools of Oriental Research 292, 9–23. through Time in the Ancient Near East, 1–20. Lanham (MD), Plog, F. 1974. The Study of Prehistoric Change. New York, AltaMira. Academic Press.8 Diane Bolger and Louise C. Maguire

SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND COMPLEXITY

IN PRE-STATE COMMUNITIES 2

SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AND ARCHAEOLOGY:

A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH

Marc Verhoeven

Introduction or development of complex society (e.g. Rothman 2004)

The notion of complexity is commonly used by archaeologists or the evolution of early states (e.g. Stein and Rothmanto indicate differences in the socio-economic structure of 1994; Yoffee 2005). The term ‘civilisation’ is less commonancient societies. The use of the term implies that there are in academic circles nowadays, but major publications havenon-complex (simple) and complex societies, with the latter used it to structure their narratives. Oates and Oates (1976)having evolved out of the former (e.g. ‘the rise of socio- and Redman (1978), for instance, speak of the “rise ofeconomic complexity’). In many cases, therefore, the use of civilization,” Maisels of the “emergence” (1990) and “cradle”the concept of complexity is a form of (neo-)evolutionary (1993) of civilisation, and Algaze (1993) of the “dynamicsthinking. More particularly, in Near Eastern archaeology and expansion of early Mesopotamian civilization.” In fact,the term ‘complexity’ surfaces time and again in relation to these publications are not only structured by this notion; theysocieties dated to the Bronze Age and later, i.e. to (incipient) are largely founded on it. For example, in the first chapterstates and ‘civilisation’. of his book Redman (1978, 1) writes: Complexity, however, is a very subjective term which The Agricultural and Urban Transformations as they occurred inimmediately leads one’s thoughts in specific directions. the ancient Near East are among the truly significant milestonesBut what exactly is it? Is there an alternative to using the in the history of humankind. The social changes that thesenotion of complexity in terms of successive types of society? processes fostered influenced all aspects of society and formedAre there perhaps different forms of complexity? In this the structure out of which today’s world has emerged. The Nearcontribution these issues will be explored. First, to set the East has been selected as the geographical setting in which tostage, a critical account of what has been termed the ‘rise examine the rise of civilization because changes took place there at a very early date, perhaps earlier than anywhere elseof civilisation in the Near East’ is given. This is followed in the world. In addition to this temporal priority, the historyby a discussion of social complexity and a critique of the and prehistory of the Near East directly affected the emergencecommon use of the notion of social evolution. In the second and growth of Western civilization.part of the paper two examples are presented of complex(ritual) contexts in communities that are generally regarded Although this was written more than 30 years ago and,as (socio-economically) non-complex. as already indicated, the term ‘civilisation’ seems to be less common nowadays in academic contexts, it is still regularly used in popular media, and I suspect that Redman’s ideas are still shared by a large number of Near EasternThe Rise of Civilisation? archaeologists, especially those dealing with the historicFor many years, Near Eastern archaeology has been periods. Moreover, many prehistorians dealing with thepreoccupied with the rise of socio-economic complexity so-called Neolithic Revolution explicitly or implicitly useand the development of states and civilisation. It is one of the idea of a rise of civilisation as well (e.g. Özdoğan andthe most popular themes in introductory books as well as in Başgelen 1999; Hauptmann and Özdoğan 2007). There areacademic teaching. Frequently one reads about the evolution three main problems with this idea. Firstly, like the notion12 Marc Verhoeven

of complexity, the term ‘civilisation’ is very subjective and units can be households, political associations or villages.involves a value judgement. For most people it means to Moreover, Rothman distinguishes two axes of complexity: abe civilised, but what, then, about people who did or do horizontal axis made up of the individual parts of the systemnot live in civilisations? Were and are they uncivilised? (segregation); and a vertical axis consisting of hierarchicalNot many would probably dare to say this nowadays, but levels (centralisation or integration). These horizontalthe notion of civilisation, consciously or unconsciously, and vertical dimensions of complexity are still widelysets up a qualitative difference. Secondly, the concept of used in analyses. However, because it has been realiseda ‘rise of civilisation’ is teleological, i.e. it supposes that that complexity consists of many potentially independent‘pre-civilised’, pre-state, and pre-historic communities variables, further divisions have been made, which haveand cultures were designed for or directed toward a final enabled the analysis and distinction of different forms andresult: (modern Western) civilisation. In other words, in degrees of social complexity (e.g. McGuire 1983; Blantonan explicitly evolutionary fashion, prehistoric societies are et al. 1993).treated as stages towards more developed conditions and However, as R. Chapman (2003, 84) notes, the mostnot as societies in their own right. Thirdly, the use of the basic distinction is that between ‘surface’ traits (e.g. verticalnotion of ‘civilisation’ often goes hand in hand with that social differentiation) and ‘deep’ traits (e.g. segregation andof complexity, generally without mentioning what exactly integration). I argue that the ‘surface’ traits are dominantis meant by it (but see Rothman 1994). In fact, ‘complex in the popular conception of complex societies, moresociety’ is nowadays frequently used as a synonym for particularly the surface traits of stratified societies (chiefdomscivilisation. Just like the term ‘civilisation’, the terms and states). Thus, among other things, urbanisation, large‘emerging complexity’, ‘complex society’ and so on populations, craft specialisation, social differentiation,implicitly make a distinction between non-complex (simple) hereditary ranking, centralised production, long-distanceand complex societies, with the former being regarded as trade, writing, bureaucracy, formalisation of law and thesomehow inferior to the latter. In the following pages I wish monopoly on the right to use force (i.e. characteristics ofto address some of the problems related to this dichotomous chiefdoms and/or states: see e.g. Nelson 1995; R. Chapmanway of thinking and to argue for a more nuanced use of the 2003, 7, 91) are regarded as typical for complex societiesnotion of complexity. and social complexity. However, as we shall see, when ‘deep’, structural traits are used, and when it is accepted that, according to context, different degrees of complexity can exist within the same society, almost any society can beSocial Complexity regarded as complex in some or many respects. In fact, someComplexity is an intricate issue which is studied in many have even argued that social processes are too complex anddifferent disciplines outside the social sciences, e.g. biology, particular to be rigorously modelled in terms of complexitycomputer science, physics, mathematics. In this contribution (e.g. Stewart 2001).I shall obviously be concerned with social complexity, i.e.complexity in past human societies (e.g. Randsborg 1981;van der Leeuw 1981; Price and Feinman 1995). This isa huge field of study (there is even a Journal of Social Social EvolutionComplexity), but for the purposes of this paper I shall limit It is clear that the notion of social complexity is firmlymyself to terminology and the problems of the concept of embedded in that of social (or cultural) evolution,social complexity. characterised by subsequent stages from simple to complex There are many different definitions of complexity, with increasing degrees of technological, social and economicbut recurrently it is stated that it denotes a whole made complexity (e.g. R. Chapman 2003, 4–8). In fact, the ‘riseup of differentiated and interrelated parts: the more of civilisation’ discussed above is wholly based on anparts and the more connections between parts, the more evolutionary framework in which societies are progressivelycomplex the system or society. Flannery (1972) was one ranked according to their socio-economic complexity (e.g.of the first archaeologists to explicitly use the concept of Redman 1978, fig. 6.13). Such evolutionary schemes gosocial complexity. He argued that there were two main back to anthropological thinking in the 19th century (e.g.dimensions to be distinguished: segregation, the degree Tylor 1871; Morgan 1877; Spencer 1967 [1897]; see alsoof differentiation and specialisation within a system; and Childe 1951), but the most famous models are those ofcentralisation, the degree to which the parts of the system Service (1962) and Fried (1967), both of which are mainlywere interrelated. In an analysis of chiefdoms and early based on the ethnographic record. Service paid particularstates in the Near East, Rothman (1994, 4) used Flannery’s attention to the social structure of societies whereas Friedideas to define complexity as: “... the degree of functional emphasised the role of political factors in social evolution.differentiation among societal units or sub-systems.” Such Table 2.1 presents an overview of the various stages 2. Social complexity and archaeology: A contextual approach 13

Service Fried proposed while Table 2.2 lists the main characteristics of organisation society Social complexity these stages (see R. Chapman 2003, 34–38 for an overview). Although the models of Service and Fried have been STATE STATE high severely criticised, the succession of band-tribe-chiefdom- state (Service) or egalitarian, ranked, stratified, and state- STRATIFIED societies (Fried) is still widely used in archaeology (e.g. Earle 1991; Rowlands and Kristiansen 1998). As Shanks CHIEFDOM increasing and Tilley (1987, 144) have noted, from the 19th century onwards social-evolutionary schemes have had seven main RANKED characteristics: (1) a totalising holism, a focus on the entire history of humanity; (2) gradualism, social change as a TRIBE continuous and cumulative process; (3) universality, change as a generic and natural process shaping humanity and EGALITARIAN social institutions; (4) potentiality, change as endogenous and inherent in human societies: (5) directionality, change BAND low as a unified process (not cyclical or random), leading toTable 2.1 The social evolutionary frameworks of Service (1962) optimal situations; (6) determinism, change as irreversiblyand Fried (1967). and inevitably leading from the simple to the complex or

Stage Social structure Subsistence and economy Social hierarchy Demography

STATE - specialised, - no equal access to use of legitimised force to establish and - urbanisation; (Service and Fried) bureaucratic resources maintain authority of leadership; - rise in population government - complex of institutions by means density - class society of which power of society is organised on a basis superior to kinship STRATIFIED - no equal access to - status differences grounded in - urbanisation; SOCIETY resources economic differences - rise in population (Fried) - increased warfare density

Table 2.2 Main characteristics of the social evolutionary frameworks of Service (1962) and Fried (1967).14 Marc Verhoeven

from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous; and (7) causal is guided and restricted by tradition, rules and repetitionreductionism, the notion that everywhere and at every time (Firth 1951, 222; Verhoeven forthcoming).change was subject to the same causal laws. These seven characteristics can all be turned intocriticisms on the basis of the fact that they are over-generalising, ethnocentric (modern Western), essentialist and Complex Hunter-gatherersacontextual. In fact, there are many examples of societies In traditional evolutionary schemes, such as those ofthat do not fit evolutionist typologies (see e.g. R. Chapman Service and Fried, hunter-gatherers are representatives of2003, 41–44). Moreover, social evolutionary models hardly the simplest social systems; they are at the very base ofleave any room for contingency. Such models, then, are human evolution. As indicated in Table 2.2, according toimplicitly teleological, based on the idea that humanity such schemes, their social structure is based on kinship;is moving towards a predefined and predetermined goal. they are egalitarian and lack political, legal or religiousMoreover, diffusion and cultural contact between societies groups; they are self-sufficient; they have a low populationare largely ignored. How does such contact effect change? density; and they are mobile. However, as is well known,Finally, there is no real place for agency, with humans there are many examples of hunter-gatherer communitiesbeing regarded as subjects in an evolutionary process over that are far from simple and that in fact have manywhich they have no control (Johnson 1999, 142; see also characteristics of so-called complex societies. Hence theySmith 1973). are often called ‘complex hunter-gatherers’ (Price and Social evolution, then, does not necessarily lead towards Brown 1985). Perhaps one of the most famous examplesmore social complexity, however the latter is defined. are the historically documented Indian tribes of the North-Furthermore, complex societies are not always marked by west Coast of America, marked by hereditary social ranking,social and spatial hierarchies or by social, political and sedentary villages, dense populations, craft specialisation,economic centralisation. Multiple hierarchies can exist as warfare, private ownership, wealth differences and evenwell as hierarchies that have a limited power only. In the slavery (e.g. Lightfoot 1993 cited in R. Chapman 2003, 85).lowland Maya society, for instance, the political system was A prime example from prehistory are the Jomon of Japanhighly stratified and centrally controlled, while the economic (c. 13000–2200 BP), hunter-gatherers who lived in largeorganisation was horizontally structured (Potter and King sedentary or semi-sedentary settlements, made elaborate1995). The latter is an example of what has been termed pottery and probably cultivated nut trees. Moreover, circlesa ‘heterarchy’. This term denotes social situations where of standing stones, thousands of human figurines, dentaleverybody shares the same horizontal position of power mutilation and elaborate decorative ‘art’ styles, amongand authority. More specifically, Crumley (1979, 144) has other things, are indicative of complex ritual and symbolicdefined heterarchy as “... the relation of elements to one activities and beliefs (Habu 2004).another when they are unranked ... when they possess the These symbolic and ritual contexts are rarely mentionedpotential for being ranked in a number of different ways.” in studies of hunter-gatherer complexity. I shall give anA heterarchy may be parallel to a hierarchy, subsumed by ethnographic example of complex ritual practice in whatit, or contain hierarchies, but the two kinds of structure are has been regarded as one of the most simple communitiesnot mutually exclusive. In fact, each level in a hierachical on earth, the (now virtually extinct) Selk’nam Indians ofsystem is composed of a potentially heterarchical unit Tierra del Fuego in southern Patagonia.(Crumley 1979; 1995). The concept of heterarchy makesus aware that within the same society different types ofsocial, economic, political, or any other complexity may The Selk’namexist. Complexity, then, is a multi-dimensional issue that The Austrian anthropologist Martin Gusinde was the firstneeds to be contextualised and problematised in order to to systematically describe and analyse the indians of Tierramake sense of social situations and social change. del Fuego, which he did in three volumes published from In the remaining part of this paper I shall give two brief 1931 to 1939 (Gusinde 1931). Like other hunting-gatheringexamples, one ethnographic and one archaeological, that peoples of Patagonia (e.g. the Yamana, Haush and Alakaluf),indicate that social complexity is not or not only the outcome the Selk’nam (formerly also known as the Ona) wereof social evolution or the prerogative of stratified or ‘complex marked by an extremely limited (simple) material culture.societies’, but that different forms of complexity (the ‘deep In 1928 Lothrop wrote, “Perhaps no feature of Ona life istraits’ mentioned above) can occur in any society. The more striking to us than their apparent unpreparedness tofocus shall be on ritual, used here to indicate performances face the rigors of the Fuegian climate, especially as regardswhich are distinguished in both space and time, marked by their house and their clothes” (Lothrop 1928, 51). Indeed,explicit material and immaterial symbolism, and often (but instead of dwellings they originally used plain windbreaksnot always) related to the supernatural in which behaviour made of Guanaco hides. These skins also served as their 2. Social complexity and archaeology: A contextual approach 15

Table 2.3 The structure of the Selk’nam Hain ritual (based on A. Chapman 1997). * = group of initiates counted as 1; ** = based on 10spirits; *** = based on 5 types of body decoration.

clothing, worn loosely over their otherwise naked bodies,

with the fur on the outside. They had only few domestictools, such as simple storage bags, baskets, scrapers and awlsand their weapons were bows and arrows. On encounteringFuegians aboard Captain Fitzroy’s Beagle in 1831, Darwin,the godfather of evolutionism, exclaimed: “I could not havebelieved how wide was the difference between savageand civilized man. It is greater than between a wild anddomesticated animal ...” (Darwin 1839, 228 quoted in Beer1997, 149). Notwithstanding their indeed poor materialculture, the ritual life of the Selk’nam was very complex.In fact, it is too complicated to even properly summarisehere. Therefore, mainly by means of some citations froman analysis of the so-called Hain ritual (A. Chapman 1982,1997) and a scheme (Table 2.3), I shall provide a taste ofthis complexity.

THE HAIN RITUAL

The Hain ritual was a rite de passage, a coming-of-ageceremony for young men during which the otherwisewandering family groups congregated. Both the ceremonyand the sacred hut that was the focus of the rituals werecalled Hain. The objective of the extended ritual was toinstruct the male initiates (kloketen) in the moral behaviour,oral tradition and subsistence activities of Selk’nam society.The two principal spirits of the Hain ritual were Shoort and Fig. 2.1 Main participants of the Selk’nam Hain ritual: the twoXalpen. Xalpen was the only (female) spirit represented Shoorts of the north and left skies. Typically the men representingby an effigy. Shoort was represented by fantastically and the spirits (which are primarily manifestations of the sun) areabstractly painted and masked male human actors (Fig. 2.1), naked and decorated by painted abstract symbols. The masks arewho actively terrorised the initiates and women (except the guanco-leather hoods stuffed with vegetal matter (after photo takenwives and in-laws of the shamans). Among the audience by Gusinde 1931, re-published by A. Chapman, 1997, fig. 71).16 Marc Verhoeven

the mothers of the kloketens played prominent ceremonial elements. Clearly, as already indicated by the citations, weroles. Shamans seem to have been the principal directors have here a very complex cosmology, religious system andof the ritual. The Hain ceremony could last an entire year ritual practice in a politically egalitarian hunter-gathereror even longer. society that would be deemed ‘simple’ according to standard The Hain hut symbolised both the cosmos and the social evolutionary schemes.social system. Its four principal posts were aligned in Our second example of ritually complex contexts in aa circle at the cardinal points or ‘skies’ (sho’on). These presumed socially/politically unstratified society comesposts represented the ‘centres of the skies’, the places of from the prehistory of the Near East, the early Neolithiccreation in the universe (‘wombs’). Three additional posts site of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey.were set up between these main features. Each of the sevenposts represented a number of territories and lineages (A.Chapman 1997, 88–89): Göbekli Tepe The four skies were thought of as ‘invisible cordilleras of Göbekli Tepe (‘navel mountain’) is located near the city of infinity’. The east sky, whose post was named Páhuil (a Haush Urfa in south-eastern Turkey in a rather desolated area at the word) was the most magnificent yet the most treacherous of top of a large limestone ridge. The site consists of several all. Its great slippery cordillera was surrounded by a sea of mounds, the total area of occupation measuring about 300 boiling water. The magnificent cordillera of the west sky was m in diameter. Since 1995, excavations covering an area of the centre, or womb, of the wind (Shenu), for whom the west approximately 5000 km2 have been mainly carried out on post of the Hain was named. The sun (Krren) was associated the south-eastern mound. Göbekli Tepe dates from between with the west sky, and Shenu was his brother. Shenu had assisted c. 9100–8500 cal BC, i.e. from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A his brother Krren, then a powerful shaman, when they attacked (PPNA) to the Middle/Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) the Hain of the matriarchy and its dominant leader, the female periods. shaman Moon (Kreeh). In the beautiful cordillera of the south As is well known, Göbekli Tepe has yielded spectacular sky lived Owl (Sheit), for whom the south post was named. His mighty brother Snow (Hosh) also lived there with his sister evidence of what were undoubtedly ritual practices, indicated Moon, once sovereign of the famed matriarchy, who had been by several stone buildings with megalithic decorated T- defeated by her husband Sun. Finally, the cordillera of the north shaped pillars and a large stone sculpture depicting various sky was the home of Sea (Kox) and his sister Rain (Chalu). humans and animals. Given that some of the T-shaped pillars Here the mystical Flamingo (Télil) was honoured as the north (like those found in a ‘cult building’ at the nearby Early- post of the Hain. The souls (kaspi) of humans returned at death Middle PPNB site Nevali Çori: e.g. Hauptmann 1993, 1999; to these wombs, the skies, with which each person had been Hauptmann and Schmidt 2007) were marked by bent human identified during his or her lifetime. In the wombs of the vast arms at the sides and hands and possible indications of dress outer space the souls were reunited with the eternal forces of at the front (all in bas-relief), it is highly likely that they the universe. depict humans, the body being represented by the verticalThe Selk’nam cosmology was not only materialised in the part and the head by the horizontal part of the ‘T’. RichHain hut but also played an important role in the power and samples of wild plants and animals and the absence of housessymbolism of Shoorts (A. Chapman 1997, 100): and evidence for animal or plant domestication indicate that Göbekli Tepe was occupied by hunter-gatherers (e.g. While all appear to be manifestations of the sun symbol, some have different functions and status. But there is a prototype Schmidt 2001; 2005; 2006; 2007; Hauptmann and Schmidt Shoort who is represented by the k’tétu ..., a small white owl ... 2007). In standard social-evolutionary classifications, the As a mythological being K’tétu had been a powerful shaman. people using this site would probably be expected to be He belonged to the west sky, the sky of the sun, was ‘very part of a band or a tribe. perfect’, handsome and muscular, and played the part of Shoort particularly well during the first men’s (mythological) Hain. ANIMALS THAT MATTER: RITUAL PRACTICE Later he was transformed into this owl. The Shoort personage The functions and meanings of the buildings and sculptures of the real Hain was decorated to depict the patterns of the is still puzzling and far from clear, but for the moment the owl’s feathers: white bands around the eyes of his mask, white excavator, Klaus Schmidt, suggests that the site was a central knees and white splotches of paint on his body. place for hunter-gatherer communities; a place where,These examples suffice to show that the Hain ritual and first and foremost, rituals related to death were carriedassociated Selk’nam cosmology are very complex. This out (though so far, no burials have been found), possiblyis indicated in Table 2.3, which presents a general scheme under the direction of shamans. The T-shaped pillars wouldof the complex structure of the Hain ceremony, especially have depicted supernatural beings or ancestors, who wereof the connections (physical and/or non-material) between protected by the dangerous animals depicted on the pillars.the various constituents. A conservative estimate indicates At the end of their use-life the buildings were deliberatelythat there were up to 83 connections between the various filled and buried, possibly reinforcing their role in death 2. Social complexity and archaeology: A contextual approach 17

cults (Schmidt 2006; 2007). Whatever the precise meaning

of the buildings and sculpture, it seems to be clear that herewe have unmistakable and spectacular evidence for ritualactivities (see e.g. Verhoeven 2002). In the following paragraphs, based mainly on the workof Schmidt (2006; 2007), I shall deal with the rich andcomplex iconography on the large T-shaped pillars (Fig. 2.2).I shall also focus on PPNA level III in which the oval stonebuildings A, B, C and D have been excavated (on the basis ofgeophysical research, it is estimated that at least 20 additionalbuildings are present at the site). The largest building (C)measures approximately 30 × 25 m, while the smallestbuilding (B) measures about 15 × 15 m. To date, a total of38 stone pillars have been recovered from these structures.The pillars are situated within or against the stone wallsand benches where they surround two larger free-standingcentral pillars (except in building A: see fig. 76 in Schmidt2006). On the basis of the designs on the pillars, buildings Aand B are known as the Snake-pillar Building and the Fox-pillar Building respectively (a smaller rectangular buildingof the later PPNB level IIA has been termed the Lion-pillarBuilding). The pillars in buildings A–D have been listed inTables 2.4 and 2.5); on the basis of published information(no detailed analyses are available yet), I attempt to presentthe decorations of each pillar in order to assess the degreesof iconographic and ritual complexity. As indicated in Tables 2.4–2.5, the maximum numberof different symbols on a pillar is seven, and symbolsare present in 55 cases. At least 48 different symbols arepresent on the pillars in 20 buildings. Building B wasparticularly rich in connections between different elements.As the majority of the pillars are partly hidden in walls,and as not all of them have been excavated down to theirbases, many more symbols and connections are probablypresent. In fact, many other objects, features and contextshave been found with undoubtedly highly symbolic and,most probably, ritual functions and meanings, mainly largeanimal, human and human-animal statues. The ongoingexcavations will undoubtedly reveal more such features.While it is as yet not possible to reliably estimate thenumber of connections between the different elements ofthe ritual ‘system’, the presence of at least 20 buildingsand at least 38 (probably anthropomorphic) pillars with atleast 48 different (animal and abstract) symbols in varyingcombinations, surely indicates that the buildings at GöbekliTepe were quite complex symbolic structures. In fact, wecan say that they were part of a complex symbolic, ritualand religious ‘universe’.

Fig 2.2 View of the front part of one of the large T-shaped stoneConclusions pillars in a ritual building at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe (pillarIt is undeniable that on a global scale there has been a 33 in Building D): symbolic connections between different animals:general evolution from small-scale, politically largely an insect and snakes (after Schmidt 2006, fig. 91).18 Marc Verhoeven

Table 2.4 The iconography of the pillars (indicated by numbers) in Buildings A–C of Level III (PPNA) at Göbekli Tepe. ? = no symbolsrecovered so far. Based on Schmidt 2006; 2007.

undifferentiated and principally egalitarian societies to our examples can be presented in the Near East, such as thecurrent (western) highly complex way of living. As heuristic complex hunter-gatherers of the Epi-Palaeolithic Natufiandevices, therefore, terms like band, tribe, chiefdom, and culture and early farmers and pastoralists at Late Neolithicstate are useful for giving an idea about the general nature Çatalhöyük and Tell Sabi Abyad I (see e.g. Verhoeven 2000;of societies. However, such social-evolutionary schemes 2004; Hodder 2006).are over-generalising, ethnocentric (modern Western), In assessing degrees of complexity, then, we should lookessentialist and acontextual. Moreover, depending on at ‘deep’, structural traits (e.g. by counting the connectionscontexts, complexity has many dimensions. As we have between different elements) instead of using the pre-seen, societies that are materially and politically perhaps established surface traits such as economic and politicalnot complex (i.e. simple), such as the sub-recent Selk’nam characteristics of types of societies. The alternative toin Patagonia or the hunter-gatherers at early Neolithic using complexity to refer to a sequence of societal typesGöbekli Tepe in south-eastern Turkey, can nevertheless is to acknowledge that according to context (material,be very complex in other respects. In fact, many other technological, symbolical, ritual, etc.) there can be different 2. Social complexity and archaeology: A contextual approach 19

Table 2.5 The iconography of the pillars (indicated by numbers) in Buildings C–D of Level III (PPNA) at Göbekli Tepe. ? = no symbolsrecovered so far. Based on Schmidt 2006; 2007.

levels of complexity in any community or society. In other their editorial assistance. Mikko Kriek made the drawingswords, there are different forms of complexity. Communities and Ans Bulles corrected the English text.or societies are not complex or simple; rather, they have bothcomplex and non-complex dimensions. In such a contextualapproach it is explicitly acknowledged that social complexityis not just the pre-ordained result of an evolutionary process, Referencesor the benchmark of a ‘civilised’ society. There must have Algaze, G. 1993. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics ofbeen many different forms of complexity in the past, and Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago,analysis of these variable forms may generate a better University of Chicago Press.understanding of human psyche, ingenuity and achievement, Beer, G. 1997. Travelling the other way: Travel narratives andrather than of ‘progress’. truth claims. In C. McEwan, L. A. Borrero and A. Prieto (eds) Patagonia: Natural History, Prehistory and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth, 140–152. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Acknowledgements Blanton, R., S. Kowalewski, G. Feinman and J. Appel 1993.By working in different regions and time periods, Eddie Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in ThreePeltenburg has made important contributions to our under- Regions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapman, A. 1982. Drama and Power in a Hunting Society:standing of the complexities of ancient communities, be it The Selk’nam of Tierra del Fuego. Cambridge, Cambridgeof the Neolithic colonisation of Cyprus or secondary state University Press.formation in Early Bronze Age Syria. Therefore he would Chapman, A. 1997. The great ceremonies of the Selk’nam and theprobably be one of the first to acknowledge the contextual Yámana: A comparative analysis. In C. McEwan, L. A. Borreronature of complexity, and it is to him that this paper is and A. Prieto (eds) Patagonia: Natural History, Prehistorydedicated. I am grateful to Louise Maguire and Diane and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth, 82–109.Bolger for the invitation to write this paper, as well as for Princeton, Princeton University Press.20 Marc Verhoeven

Service, E. R. 1962. Primitive Social Organization: An Evol- Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1981. Archaeological Approaches to the Study utionary Perspective. New York, Random House. of Complexity. Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Verhoeven, M. 2000. Death, fire and abandonment: Ritual practice Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. at later Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. ArchaeologicalSmith, A. 1973. The Concept of Social Change: A Critique of the Dialogues 7(1), 46–83. Functionalist Theory of Social Change. Boston and London, Verhoeven, M. 2002. Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Routledge & Kegan Paul. Neolithic B of the Levant and south-east Anatolia. CambridgeSpencer, H. 1967. The Evolution of Society: Selections from Archaeological Journal 12(2), 233–258. Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology (ed. R. L. Carneiro). Verhoeven, M. 2004. Beyond boundaries: Nature, culture and a Chicago, University of Chicago Press. holistic approach to domestication in the Levant. Journal ofStein, G. and M. S. Rothman (eds) 1994. Chiefdoms and Early World Prehistory 18(3), 179–282. States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Verhoeven, M. forthcoming. The many dimensions of ritual. In T. Complexity. Madison, Prehistory Press. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of RitualStewart, P. 2001. Complexity theories, social theory, and the and Religion. Oxford, Oxford University Press. question of social complexity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of 31(3), 323–360. the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge,Tylor, E. B. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Develop- Cambridge University Press. ment of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. London, John Murray. 3

LATE NEOLITHIC ARCHITECTURAL RENEWAL:

THE EMERGENCE OF ROUND HOUSES IN THE NORTHERN LEVANT, c. 6500–6000 BC

Peter M. M. G. Akkermans

Round houses are a characteristic feature of the 6th Yarim Tepe II–III in Iraq. These rectangular buildings, it hasmillennium BC in Syro-Mesopotamia (all dates in this been suggested, were special-purpose installations, servingpaper are calibrated dates BC). Substantial evidence for as the communities’ communal granaries or storehousesthis kind of architecture first came to light at Yunus in (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 117).south-eastern Anatolia and, in particular, at Tell Arpachiyah Because of their extreme abundance at the 6th millen-in Northern Iraq in the early 1930s. Ever since then, the nium Halaf sites, the tholoi have always been consideredcircular structures have usually been referred to as tholoi archetypical of this culture and period. It is important(singular tholos) on the basis of some broad but misleading to realise, however, that the distribution of these roundparallels in layout with Mycenaean tombs of a much later buildings cuts across the traditional cultural boundariesdate (Mallowan and Rose 1935, 25). Two basic types are created by archaeologists in every possible way: not onlyfound: buildings simply made of one circular room; and more do the circular dwellings appear to have had a much longercomplex, keyhole-shaped buildings consisting of a circular history, going back as far as the mid-7th millennium BC,room enlarged by a rectangular antechamber. Generally they but they also occur roughly contemporarily in places alienhave a diameter between 3 and 5 m although both smaller to the Halaf culture, such as the Yarmukian sites of theand much larger ones occur as well. The walls were made southern Levant (e.g. Gopher 1995). The Late Neolithicof mud brick or pisé, either laid on stone foundations or tholoi, it appears, were not simply part of the ‘checklist’simply set on the surface without any support whatsoever. of a specific archaeological construct (culture, period andThe walls carried a mud plaster often covered by a thin region) but served in many different circumstances.white gypsum coating, giving the buildings a bright white Reviews of the round buildings of the 6th millenniumappearance. The tholoi are usually thought to have had Halaf culture are relatively numerous (e.g. Akkermansbeehive-shaped superstructures made wholly of mud bricks, 1989; Breniquet 1996; Tsuneki and Miyake 1998), but verybut flat or pitched roofs made of reeds and other organic little has been said until now about the tholoi of the 7thmaterials were probably used as well. millennium BC. The latter structures are astounding finds By the mid-6th millennium, circular structures with or if only because of their great and unexpected antiquity.without a rectangular antechamber were immensely popular Hence the purpose of this article is to briefly consider thein the hamlets and villages of the Halaf culture over much of nature and origins of the earliest round dwellings in Latenorthern Syria, south-eastern Anatolia and Iraq. Sites of this Neolithic Syria, c. 6500–6000 BC, primarily on the basis ofperiod tended to consist almost exclusively of round houses the excavations at the site of Tell Sabi Abyad on the Balikh.although rectangular structures still occurred in (very) The paper is in honour of Eddie Peltenburg, who has been amodest numbers. A few such rectangular buildings made of friend for many years as well as an outstanding researcher invery small cellular rooms, for example, were located amidst the field of Near Eastern archaeology, and who happens toa mass of round houses at Çavi Tarlası in south-eastern share an interest in prehistoric round houses, particularly onAnatolia, at Tell Sabi Abyad in Syria and at the mounds of the island of Cyprus (see, for example, Peltenburg 2004). 3. Late Neolithic architectural renewal: The emergence of round houses in the northern Levant 23

Fig. 3.1 Map of Syria and the location of Tell Sabi Abyad.

Seventh Millennium Origins

The long held belief that the northern Levantine tholoioriginated in the Halaf epoch (c. 5900–5300 BC), and notbefore, derived principally from the absence of any suchstructures in occupations of an earlier, pre-Halaf, date(although it must be added that the absence of evidence wasprimarily negative in the sense that the number of excavatedsites of this earlier period were minimal). However,excavations since the start of the 1990s at several sites inSyria, such as Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Halula, Tell el-Kerkhand Chagar Bazar, have begun to explore settlement strataof the late 7th millennium BC which, significantly, containedcircular architecture. Most relevant in this respect is theextensive fieldwork at Tell Sabi Abyad in the Balikh region Fig. 3.2 This building with the hearth opposite the entrance isof northern Syria (Fig. 3.1), which has revealed a great one of the earliest circular structures found at Tell Sabi Abyad sonumber of round dwellings in association with rectangular far (Operation III, Level 3A, c. 6400 BC). The man in it is sittingbuildings in occupation levels predating the onset of the next to the hearth. Note the relatively wide wall and the restrictedHalaf culture by many hundreds of years. The site has interior diameter (3 m).provided the earliest Late Neolithic circular architectureknown in the Levant so far. The earliest round structures at Tell Sabi Abyad (Fig. (or Pottery Neolithic) occupations, radiocarbon dated to3.2) occurred in the extensive exposure termed Operation between c. 7000 and 6200 BC (cf Akkermans et al. 2006).III on the north-western part of the mound where work Although the stratigraphic analysis is still in progress,succeeded in establishing a long sequence of Late Neolithic at least 13 main levels of settlement (often divided into24 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans

the round structures occurred in very small numbers (the

paucity of round buildings has nothing to do with sample size but is a reality when taking into account the very large area of excavation, i.e. over 1800 m2). A total of six tholoi have been found so far, in Operation III Levels 5C to 2B, respectively. In each of these strata only a single circular building stood amidst a range of large and small, single or multi-roomed, rectangular features. Moreover, their occurrence was not continuous in the sense that there were intermediate sub-levels without round buildings. Depositional and radiocarbon evidence suggests that the tholoi were relatively short-lived and used over perhaps one generation at most, then abandoned and left to the elements (in view of the collapsed wall debris in them).Fig. 3.3 The wall of the round house in Operation III, Level 2C, Only in one case did the round buildings show evidencec. 6300 BC. A typical tholos wall, showing crumbly, orange, of remodelling or reconstruction in the same place: the Levelirregularly-shaped clay slabs joined by a solid, gray mortar. Differentsources of clay must have been in use. 2B tholos was (partially) founded upon the remains of the lower, Level 2C tholos. Significantly, the rectangular, multi- roomed architecture situated on either side of the tholos had also been rebuilt in roughly the same place and on thesublevels) were identified, some of them occurring in the same alignment, suggesting a continuous use of architecturalbroad horizontal exposures high on the mound, others in the space over an extended span of time, perhaps by onedeep but relatively narrow soundings on the slope. family. In this case, it seems, there was a straightforward, Circular buildings occur at Tell Sabi Abyad at an mutual relationship between both the round and rectangularastonishingly early date, i.e. in Operation III from Level architecture on the spot; both types of building may have5 onwards, c. 6500/6450 BC according to a number of served the needs of one and the same group of peopleradiocarbon dates. These earliest tholoi were between 3 and although probably for different purposes when taking into5 m in diameter with walls about 40–50 cm thick, made of account the difference in layout. The link is less clear in theboth sizeable, greyish to reddish-brown, irregularly shaped case of the other tholoi, which all stood isolated in the yardsclay slabs and what seem to have been small, handmade at some distance from the rectangular buildings.mud bricks joined by a distinct grey mortar (Fig. 3.3).Different sources of clay must have been exploited forbuilding purposes, each with its own qualities. There wereno particular foundations other than thick layers of mortar Round Houses in the late Seventh Millennium,into which the first layer of bricks of different sizes was 6200–6000 BCpressed. Entrance to these buildings was through narrow The long-lived settlement in the north-western part of Telldoorways about 45 cm wide, which were preferably located Sabi Abyad (Operation III) came to an end at about 6200in the south wall. Low clay thresholds were also present. BC. The desertion did not involve a total abandonmentAlthough it cannot be proved due to matters of preservation, of the site, however. Two new foci of occupation wereit is tempting to regard these doorways as low portholes as founded, partly on virgin soil, partly on slope wash at thesuch features were the usual kind of passage in the local foot of the original mound (Operations I and II). Late 7thsettlements of this period (Akkermans et al. 2006). millennium settlement also included parts of the slope of The buildings were covered inside and outside with the original site to the east and south although not alwaysa red or grey, often renewed mud plaster, which in once permanently. Interestingly, the shift in the area of habitationinstance carried a thick white gypsum coating. Two tholoi seems to coincide with many innovations and changes inhad a mud brick platform about 30 cm high, one covering the local organisation of settlement, architecture, materialabout one fourth, the other about one third of the building’s culture, economy, etc. (cf Akkermans et al. 2006). Oneinterior. Two other tholoi contained a horseshoe-shaped of those changes involved a substantial increase in thehearth close to the wall opposite the doorway, each almost use of round architecture although always in association1 m long and 0.5 m wide (cf Fig. 3.1). Their floors consisted with rectangular buildings. While, as we have seen, only aof a smoothed layer of burnt clay on a foundation of large handful of circular structures were employed in the earlysherds. One hearth had a partly intact, beehive-shaped roof levels, there were dozens of such buildings in the layers ofmade of clay slabs, 55 cm high. the late 7th millennium, c. 6200–6000 BC. In these early levels of settlement, c. 6500–6200 BC, The round houses of this period were between 2.5 and 3. Late Neolithic architectural renewal: The emergence of round houses in the northern Levant 25

Fig. 3.5 Spatial segmentation is a characteristic of the tholoi

from the late 7th millennium onwards. This round building, 4 mFig. 3.4 A relatively large tholos, about 4.6 m across (interior), with in interior diameter, has been divided in roughly two halves. Thea repeatedly renewed, horseshoe-shaped hearth east of the entrance. division wall was supported by a small buttress. A small circular,Tell Sabi Abyad, Operation I, Level 7B, c. 6100/6050 BC. pedestal-shaped hearth stood in the eastern half. Tell Sabi Abyad, Operation I, Level 7A, c. 6050 BC.

5.5 m in exterior diameter (Fig. 3.4). Their mud-brick or pedestal shaped fireplace in its centre, slightly raised abovepisé walls, about 25–45 cm wide, carried a mud plaster the floor. It was covered with a layer of white plaster withboth inside and outside, occasionally coated with a thin, a shallow, red-burnt hollow in the centre. Fireplaces alsowhite gypsum layer. The floors consisted of tramped earth, stood outside the tholoi, right next to their entrance or setsometimes with an additional clay plaster or a layer of against their wall. Sometimes half of a large, broken potterypottery sherds pressed into the mud for additional strength. jar laid on its side was used as a fireplace.Remarkably, in a few cases the plaster on the wall and floor Installations such as platforms, seats or benches werehad been heavily burnt. This reddish, burnt plaster was a virtually absent. In one tholos there was a low, white-characteristic trait of many circular buildings at Tell Sabi plastered bench or dais about 30 cm high and 40 cm wide setAbyad in the early 6th millennium Halaf period, but it was against the wall between the hearth and the doorway. A largeapparently used in the late 7th millennium as well. I assume jar neck had been sunk into it upside down, perhaps for usethat it served as a solid, hard coating, keeping out moisture as a stove (ashes and charcoal were in it; cf Nieuwenhuyseand vermin (Akkermans 1989, 59). The tholoi walls stood 2007, 59).directly on the slope of the mound without any foundation, Compartmentalisation was a main characteristic of manyand as a consequence the bases of the walls sometimes (albeit not all) round houses in the late 7th millennium. Thediffered by as much as half a metre in elevation. In order interior space was divided by one or more walls into smallerto create a flat surface for living and working, the tholoi compartments for living and working (Fig. 3.5), some ofinteriors were planed with fresh clay or wall fragments from which were provided with doorways while others were notother (collapsed) structures. The entrances to the tholoi were (access to them must have been high up in the wall). Thebetween 40 and 45 cm wide and were usually provided partition walls may have extended up to the roof level,with a low clay threshold. In several instances the threshold creating small rooms and alcoves; alternatively, they maycontained a perforated limestone or a re-used fragment from have been in the form of low barriers demarcating grain binsa basalt grinding slab with signs of hollowing and polishing, or other special-purpose installations. Very often the dividerswhich probably served as a pivot stone. Occasionally, a were little more than two short walls perpendicular to thesherd pavement lay in front of the doorway. The passages tholos wall, delimiting a roughly triangular compartment ofwere usually to the south or to the west, occasionally to the such restricted size that it cannot have served any purposenorth but never to the east. other than storage. Set against their wall, some tholoi had a rounded or Also new was the occasional addition of a rectangularhorseshoe shaped hearth as large as 1.8 m across with a antechamber to the circular room. Such keyhole shapedsmoothed, burnt clay floor on small limestones packed in buildings were a common feature at many sites of themud (cf Fig. 3.4). The hearths had been renewed often, up 6th millennium Halaf culture, but their occurrence into 12 times in one case, indicative of long use. In a few 7th millennium deposits is most unusual. In the case ofcases, shallow pits entirely filled with ashes were sunk into Tell Sabi Abyad, the few examples known so far seem tothe floor next to the hearth. One building had a small, round have been initially free-standing circular structures, which26 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans

Fig. 3.6 A unique find at Tell Sabi Abyad: the small, white-plasteredtholos about 2.3 m across (interior), flanked on either side by a Fig. 3.7 Postcard from the late 1930s showing a beehive villagerectangular room. Operation I, Level 5B, c. 5960 BC. in the countryside northeast of Aleppo in Syria. Reconstructions of the prehistoric round houses and the settlements in which they stood are commonly based on analogies with the modern, local villages shown on pictures like this. However, caution in the use of such analogies is required because Neolithic communities werewere extended at a later time by means of a rectangular highly varied and their building strategies were the result of specificroom or incorporated into a much larger, multi-roomed historical and environmental circumstances.rectilinear building. One small tholos in the south-easternarea (Operation I, Level 5) had a circular, white-plasteredroom about 3 m in diameter flanked on either side by arectangular room, each measuring roughly 1 by 1.5 m (Fig. about 20–30 years (Akkermans and Nieuwenhuyse in press)3.6). The lack of bondage between the walls suggested that the buildings were often used for a short time then simplythe side rooms were added to the tholos at a somewhat later left to decay. Quite a number of them appear to have beentime. Access to the building was from the south through the supplanted two or three times by new ones founded uponmain circular room. One rectangular side room was almost the lower, levelled building remains. Their constructioncompletely occupied by a large horseshoe shaped oven with required little investment in terms of time and energy; thea domed cover. work could probably be completed by five or six persons The tholoi are usually thought to have had a vaulted within a week or so (cf Akkermans 1993, 302).roof made entirely of mud bricks, primarily on the basis ofassumed parallels with the ‘beehive villages’ which untilrecently dotted the countryside of northern Syria and south-eastern Anatolia (Fig. 3.7; see also Copeland 1955; Aurenche Late Neolithic Round Houses in Perspective1981). However, it is doubtful whether this perspective The earliest architecture of the Epipalaeolithic to Neolithicis correct. Not only is there no historical relationship Near East consisted of round or oval, sometimes semi-whatsoever between the two forms of architecture, but the subterranean dwellings 3–6 m in diameter. By 9000 BCarchaeological evidence itself suggests either a flat or a the round houses were slowly replaced by rectangularpitched roof made of timber and reeds rather than a beehive structures in many shapes and sizes, which remainedshaped mud brick cover. Sunk into the floor in the centre predominant for several thousand years. The recurrenceof several tholoi at Tell Sabi Abyad was a concentration of of circular monocellular buildings around the middle oflimestone boulders, which probably served as a foundation the 7th millennium has no immediate cultural or technicalfor a wooden post upholding the roof (cf Akkermans 1989, roots; it implies both an innovation in architectural design32; 1993, 63). Other round buildings at the site contained and a fundamental departure from the long lived traditionclay fragments with impressions of reeds and wooden poles of rectilinear construction.in their room fill, clearly showing that their roofs were In the first 200 or 300 years of their existence, the roundmade of wooden rafters covered by reed mats, which in houses were little more than a sporadic supplement to theturn were probably covered by a thick mud layer (a kind existing architectural repertoire in the villages of the Lateof construction also used in the rectangular structures at Neolithic, increasing swiftly in importance only after c. 6200the site). BC. Apparently it took many generations for these buildings Both stratigraphic and radiocarbon evidence at Tell Sabi to gain widespread use and acceptance, perhaps becauseAbyad suggest that the late 7th millennium tholoi had a there was initially little need for them or because a socialrestricted lifespan. Within a single building phase lasting for resistance of some sort accompanied their introduction. 3. Late Neolithic architectural renewal: The emergence of round houses in the northern Levant 27

Alternatively, we may consider the scarcity of round a degrading natural environment and differences in socialbuildings in the early levels as intentional and meaningful, structure and community organisation (cf Akkermans andrelated to the use of these structures in the communities. Schwartz 2003, 103–131 and references therein). The lateThe tholoi were unique with respect to their layout and 7th millennium communities themselves remained as theyconspicuous appearance, as well as their highly restricted were before, i.e. predominantly small and dispersed, in theoccurrence. Hence, they may have served specific purposes order of 0.5–1 ha, with the number of inhabitants restrictedvery different from the usual rectangular architecture which to a few dozen. The architectural change, however, wasstood abundantly around them. The persistent presence of slow but radical in the sense that it entailed the virtuallya single round building in each of the upper occupational complete replacement of the large, multicellular, rectilinearphases at Tell Sabi Abyad is indicative of the limited yet edifices by small, monocellular, round structures. Althoughsteady demand for these special purpose installations and the once dominant rectangular houses did not disappeartheir success over a prolonged period of time. altogether, they were given a new meaning as buildings However, it is still very difficult to establish what the primarily intended for storage rather than domestic livingassumed special function of the earliest tholoi might have and working. In light of the above, an entirely newentailed. There were no artefacts or installations in the architectural rationale – either utilitarian, societal and/orbuildings other than those mentioned above to provide ideological – came into existence in many parts of the Levantclues to their use. Tholoi were carefully raised architectural in the late 7th millennium, which focussed on small groupfeatures, but this was the case for most if not all of the size and corporate efforts: the round houses were meant torectangular structures as well. Their occasional white plaster accommodate a single person or a small household of five orand hearths are other traits shared with the many rectilinear six individuals at the most while the storage buildings werebuildings in the vicinity, suggesting regular, domestic for the benefit of the entire group, whether that communityarrangements. Any activity in the round buildings must have was a single household or several such units (Akkermansbeen on a relatively small scale, involving only a few people, and Schwartz 2003, 151).given their single room and restricted size. It is tempting The new architecture often seems to have had a transientto attribute ritual significance to these rare and exceptional character. Although the rectilinear storage buildings maystructures although there is no proof to either confirm or have remained in use for 20 or 30 years with little orreject this idea. Were the circular buildings simply another no noticeable modification, the circular structures wereform of domestic architecture of this period? used briefly then replaced, often in the same place and The early tholoi scarcely differed from the many circular alignment. Only the larger tholoi experienced a morestructures so characteristic of the late 7th and, especially, sustained occupation, given the repeated renewal of their6th millennium BC. There is widespread agreement that the central hearths. It is tempting to assume that many of thetholoi of this period principally served domestic purposes round buildings were used seasonally and subsequently left(eating, drinking, sleeping, socialising, etc.). The abundant to their fate, especially because their construction requiredoccurrence of the tholoi, the hearths and other installations little investment in terms of time and labour. In this respect,often found in them, and the nature and distribution of it seems that the circular architecture of the late 7th and 6thartefacts in and around them are all mentioned as indicators millennia cannot be detached from another trait typical ofof their use in daily life, i.e. as ordinary dwellings for living this period, i.e. the focus upon mobility and the temporaryand working, granaries, storerooms or animal pens (see, for living in small and autonomous groups dispersed over theexample, Oates and Oates 1976; Breniquet 1996). Moreover, landscape. Tholoi, it seems, were easily established andin the case of 7th millennium Tell Sabi Abyad it has been easily deserted and so were the settlements in which theyargued that the larger tholoi must have been houses because stood so prominently.they contained the most extensive (single room) interiorspaces and as such were the only local features suitablefor constant habitation. The rectangular buildings at thesite of this period are considered primarily to represent Referencesstorehouses divided into many (very) small, cellular rooms Akkermans, P. M. M. G. 1989. Tell Sabi Abyad: Stratigraphy(Verhoeven 1999). and architecture. In P. M. M. G. Akkermans (ed.) Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad: Prehistoric Investigations in the Balikh The shift from rectangular to circular buildings, which Valley, Northern Syria, 17–75. British Archaeological Reportsbegan around the middle of the 7th millennium or shortly International Series 468. Oxford, British Archaeologicalafterwards and which steadily increased in importance in Reports.the course of time, has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. 1993. Villages in the Steppe: Late Neo-A variety of perspectives have been proposed, ranging from lithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northerna revival of much older building traditions that had still Syria. Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.survived in remote hinterlands to adaptations resulting from Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and O. P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds) in press.28 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans

ABANDONMENT PROCESSES AND CLOSURE

CEREMONIES IN PREHISTORIC CYPRUS: IN SEARCH OF RITUAL

Demetra Papaconstantinou

While it remains correct to state that the archaeology of similar case since from the moment of their appearance neolithic Cyprus is mainly the archaeology of domestic they manage, quietly but persistently, to revolutionise units, the prolific record of that period allows us, through the archaeological research and change the way archaeology evaluation of conditions of abandonment, to investigate elusive perceives its object of study. For decades archaeologists sociocultural levels of explanation. To accomplish that, we need have reconstructed and narrated the history of the sites they to treat house evidence as an interactive part of the totality of excavated as if everything they were finding, apart from the human experience. (Peltenburg 2003b, 118) obvious cases of eroded deposits, had a systemic coherence and value and was the direct reflection of the socio-politicalPerhaps one of the most fascinating moments in research systems of the communities they examined. Today, however,is when you realise that the questions you have been with the work that has been done on depositional andinvestigating for so long and for which you thought you abandonment processes in ethnoarchaeology, it is almosthad found convincing answers, viewed from a different impossible to make such connections without acknowledgingperspective, lead to a completely different field of inquiry the fact that any kind of interpretation about the past is inand an entirely new range of interpretations. This is one way or another filtered through these processes.undoubtedly the most fascinating but at the same time the Research on prehistoric Cyprus has been very quick tomost frustrating and disturbing moment of research, one respond to this kind of concern, and a significant numberthat makes you wonder about your conceptual constraints of projects have been conducted that are sensitive toat any given time and at the same time emphasises in depositional and abandonment processes (Frankel and Webbthe best possible way the significance of interacting and 1996; Peltenburg et al. 1998; Daune-Le Brun 2008). Evenexperimenting with new ideas. more significant is the fact these attempts are progressing The archaeology of prehistoric Cyprus has many such to the final stage of publication and are therefore beingmoments to offer. Owing to the wealth of its material and ‘materialised’ into well integrated practice.presenting a really intensive and well practiced archaeological One of the most significant patterns to have emerged outactivity by several committed researchers, archaeological of this interest seems to be the identification of divergentevidence from Cypriot prehistory offers a remarkable record practices in relation to floor assemblages among the mainfor the application of different perspectives, one which often phases in the prehistory of the island, with emphasiscompetes with its revelations and with the findings of new shifting over time between burials and houses. During theexcavations. Recent investigations on the Aceramic phase Chalcolithic period there was an abundance of usable itemsof the island with reference to its colonisation, based on on abandoned floors, in contrast to the rather poor burialthe recovery of new material (Guilaine and Briois 2001; depositions, while in the Aceramic and Early Bronze AgePeltenburg et al. 2003) and the re-examination of material periods these same artefacts were discarded away from thefrom older excavations (McCartney 2006), present one of abandoned floors (Peltenburg 2003b, 114–115, table 2).the most remarkable examples of this phenomenon. And this The present paper attempts to contribute to the aboveis just one example. by reviewing the depositional practices at a specific Depositional and abandonment processes constitute a site and discussing possible ways of understanding and30 Demetra Papaconstantinou

defining closure ceremonies in the prehistoric record. As a material possessions were burned, comprising per-framework for that exercise, a brief comment on the role sonal possessions or broken and no longer usableof ethnoarchaeological data in depositional processes is objects.necessary. • examples where, in order to avoid the mass destruction of household objects, a dying person was moved to an empty, makeshift structure, which was later burned. • cases in which groups who were practicing differentialDiscard and Abandonment in Ethnoarchaeology: disposal of the deceased’s possessions left somePutting Our Knowledge to Work objects destroyed or abandoned on house floorsThe study of formation processes constitutes one of the while other objects were interred with the individual,most powerful influences processual thinking has had on dumped in specialised refuse areas or redistributed.archaeology, and since the 1960s it has generated extensive • cases where objects were deposited upon abandon-discussions between archaeologists and ethnoarchaeologists ment as ‘offerings’ for an individual buried beneathconcerning the nature of the archaeological evidence and the the floor.relationship between human behaviour and material culture Indicative of the interpretative limits that these models(David and Kramer 2001; Cameron 2006). Apart from the present for archaeological research is the phrase that followsimportance of taphonomy and the specialised studies that LaMotta and Schiffer’s final assessment, that “much moreconcentrate on the formation of sediments, ethnoarchaeology comparative research needs to be conducted on specificwas recognised as a new field that would be able to help processes of ritual deposition before we will be able toarchaeologists address and find solutions to these questions. fully recognise the end-products of these behaviours in theAs such, it produced a new and useful vocabulary for the archaeological record” (1999, 24).identification and description of the different behavioural Perhaps, in order to gain maximum input, one oughtpatterns involved in formation process: de facto refuse, to be looking at another set of cautionary tales thatprimary deposition, secondary deposition/refuse, curation ethnoarchaeology has to offer, and one that has morebehaviour, curate and discard strategies, planned/unplanned practical implications. I refer to insights that have to doabandonment, artifact scavenging, collecting and recycling, with the very nature of depositional processes and which areand ritual depletion or ritual/assemblage enrichment. usually overlooked (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999, 24–25; see This vocabulary was created primarily to describe two also Allison 1999, 11–12). These include the fact that:of the most important behavioural patterns of deposition:discard and abandonment, patterns that according to • primary deposition of objects at their locations of useethnoarchaeological experience are significant not only is a fairly rare phenomenon and it is more likely thatbecause they reflect the life history of house floors, but we are usually dealing with abandonment or post-because they refer to daily practices that frequently have a abandonment processesstrong symbolic content and are “guided by the social and • artefact assemblages contained within stratigraphicallysymbolic fabrics of society” (Cameron 2006, 27). In support distinct proveniences are not qualitatively comparableof that perspective, Richard Bradley has gone so far as to in all cases, and that house assemblage formationstate that “the archaeological record only retains the amount processes are not created equally;of order that it does because of the very conventions by • a number of causes may generate similar abandonmentwhich it was formed” (2005, 208–209), and therefore the processes;formality that certain archaeological patterns often contain • several ritual abandonment processes might actuallyconstitutes the reflection of ritualised actions. resemble other forms of cultural deposition, especially Ethnoarchaeology has indeed a long list of cautionary provisional and de facto refuse deposition;tales to present in relation to ritualised activities and • instances of ritual accretion and depletion may haveabandonment processes, activities which are usually related altered the content of an assemblage dramatically; and,to the death of an occupant of a house. LaMotta and Schiffer finallyhave presented an extensive list of these kinds of cases • both floor and fill deposits may be created by the(1999, 23–25): same or similar depositional processes, and that these• cases where houses were burned upon abandonment, deposits may be stratigraphically indistinguishable. usually as a result of the death of one or more of the These statements, if taken seriously at an interpretative occupants, or were systematically depleted before level, would certainly be enough to rewrite the history of being burned, with foreign objects occasionally many of the archaeological sites that have been excavated deposited on house floors as part of the abandonment so far. Currently, however, when they are addressed, they ritual. usually result in rigorous taphonomic analysis and, as• other cases where only a portion of the deceased’s Bradley observes, they are used in order to mark the limits 4. Abandonment processes and closure ceremonies in prehistoric Cyprus: In search of ritual 31

of what archaeological interpretation can achieve (2005, structures with irregular plans, a rich inventory of domestic208). Furthermore, from an archaeological point of view, installations (hearths, fireplaces, bins and benches), andthere seems to be great concern with the fact that house floor on-floor tool assemblages. Owing to its exceptionally deepassemblages in archaeology present the aggregate of different stratigraphy and the variety of material culture recovered,actions of many individuals, i.e. a ‘palimpsest of activities’ the site has been the subject of many studies for the spatialand as such cannot be perceived with the conventional manner arrangements and the depositional behavioural patterns itused in anthropology or history as particular occurrences presents, exploring patterns of intergenerational competition(Allison 1999; Bradley 2005; Lucas 2008). (Peltenburg 1982; 1993) and revealing the dynamic nature In their attempt to put ethnoarchaeological research to and the continuous alterations in the life cycles of buildingswork for archaeology, scholars often seek alternative modes (Papaconstantinou 2002).of interaction. Schlanger, for example, has suggested that we In one of the most recent re-examinations (Peltenburgprobably need to “discuss kinds of prehistoric abandonment 2003b), the evidence from Vrysi has been compared tobehaviours, instead of the effects of some abandonment ethnographic cases of closure ceremonies upon the deathpractices on the assemblages we study” (1991, 460–473) of the occupant of a house based on repeated inventorieswhile Lucas, more recently, has questioned the conventional of on-floor usable materials, which in many cases seemmanner in which we think of events in archaeology as to diverge from the economising functionalistic principlesparticular occurrences and has suggested that “rather than of planned abandonment processually characterised inthinking about how objects can be interpreted in terms of ethnoarchaeology by depleted floors (Cameron and Tomkathe event, we ought to be thinking about how an event could 2003). The large numbers of intact objects, which werebe interpreted in terms of objects” (2008, 62). covered with thick, artifact-free, sterile deposits, are Within that context, the following discussion will attempt considered to indicate a deliberate act rather than the regularto re-examine material from a Late Neolithic site in Cyprus, wall collapse of a deserted building that had become aplacing emphasis on the event of the abandonment of its dumping ground (Peltenburg 2003b, 108–113). As such theystructures and exploring the possibilities that this type of resemble closure ceremonies that “may have been followinganalysis can offer for future research. the death of an important occupant who was buried outside her/his building but whose objects were largely retained in what then became a memorial” (Peltenburg 2003b, 117), emphasising major concerns with renewal and continuity. By placing emphasis on the significance of the explor-Abandonment Processes and Material ation of events in archaeology, as suggested by LucasEngagement in Archaeology: The Case of Ayios (2008), and by recognising in the abandonment of structuresEpiktitos-Vrysi the manifestation of one of the most clear events revealedAyios Epiktitos-Vrysi (henceforth Vrysi) is a Late Neolithic by the archaeological record, the following discussionsettlement dating to the 5th millennium BC and located will concentrate on the comparison of the layers betweenon a coastal promontory extending from the foothills of floors. This will be carried out according to the stratigraphicthe Kyrenia Mountains on the north coast of the island description of the site in the publication, and will explore(Peltenburg 1982). It is part of the Ceramic Neolithic trad- the different types of depositional behaviour in eachition which appeared after a gap of 500 to 1000 years from structure in an attempt to understand the conventions andits predecessor, the Aceramic Neolithic, and is characterised formalities that may have characterised their life cycles. Aby a number of settlements (Vrysi, Sotira-Teppes, Klepini- brief description of the abandonment processes that seemTroulli, Kantou-Koufovounos, Paralimni-Nissia) with quite to have taken place in the life history of the houses at Vrysidistinctive pottery styles but similar intra-site arrangements raises significant issues for the understanding of such eventsof clusters of freestanding houses usually identified as in the archaeological record (Tables 4.1 and 4.2).general purpose habitation units (Peltenburg and Spanou If we compare the vocabulary used in ethnoarchaeology1999; Bolger 2003, 26–29; Steel 2004, 63–74). with that formulated by archaeological observation in the Vrysi is somewhat unique because the area in which it is field, there are clear distinctions concerning not only thelocated is divided by a number of deep hollows and ridges, degree of intentionality but also the variety of processes thatmost probably of natural origin, and as a result habitation might intervene between the use and re-use of buildings.developed mostly within semi-subterranean hollows, form- Hence the archaeological list of events connected to theing a long succession of superimposed layers (Fig. 4.1). The abandonment of a structure involves a variety of processespart of the settlement revealed by the excavation is divided that are not evident in the ethnoarchaeological record.by a central ridge into two sectors, north and south, with These include the immediate re-use and re-surfacing of ahabitation starting initially from the north and extending to floor (House 1, floor 4b; House 2A, floor 3; House 3, floorthe south. Occupation in the area consists of single-roomed 5); the various ways a superstructure can collapse (roof32 Demetra Papaconstantinou

and wall collapse: House 1, floor 5); removal of roof and areas cut by later features and eroded (House 5, floor 1;demolition of the upper walls (House 1, floor 4a, floor 1); House 4a, floor 1b; House 2b, floor 1).partial collapse (House 6, floor 2); and a number of different Furthermore, it is clear that the life histories of specificpost-abandonment activities, such as floors which were buildings are characterised by several types of ‘plannedleft open as a dumping ground (House 7, floor 1), areas of actions’ which are quite different from each other. House 1,continuous, ephemeral occupation (House 1, floor 5; House for example, presents a history of readily identifiable floors6, floor 2; House 2b, floors 4a–b; House 3, floor 4), and with short periods of immediate re-use and re-surfacing and 4. Abandonment processes and closure ceremonies in prehistoric Cyprus: In search of ritual 33

Table 4.3 Curate and discard strategies, Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi, North Sector (data after Peltenburg 1982, 22–52). Shaded areas indicatethe lack of distinguishable floors and the existence of a continuous build up of occupation. The number of finds is not calculated for thesefloors. The distinction between identifiable patterns and scattered objects refers to cases where patterns in the distribution of objects couldbe discerned, due to their concentration against walls around domestic installations (hearths, benches and bins). The finds are mostlybone and stone tools.

between planned and unplanned abandonment behaviour, as (see also Renfrew 2004, 30). In this respect House 1 atethnoarchaeology does, but to identify the type of planned Vrysi must indeed have been a significant building inabandonment processes and its relationship to the deposition the history of the settlement since it was sealed off twiceof artifacts. (floors 4a, 2), in the first case together with two identifiable Having extended our knowledge of abandonment pro- pillars of phallic shape. However, while its use, re-use andcesses in the archaeological record, we realise that the transformation from domestic alterations (re-surfacing) todistinction between abandonment and discard in closure more ritualised instances of abandonment (identified bydeposits refers in practice to two kinds of behavioural the deliberate deposition of usable on-floor assemblagespatterns: behaviour that has to do with the abandonment of a and sterile, object-free, fills) certainly indicate “renewingbuilding, i.e. how buildings ended their lives; and behaviour senses of identity” (Peltenburg 2003b, 117), these occur onthat has to do with the role of material culture in that process a rather limited, domestic scale.of abandonment, i.e. patterns that refer to the low or high The abandonment of a house is the clearest event of changecontextual integrity of house-floor assemblages. that exists in the archaeological record. Since houses in the Viewed from this perspective, the different types of Neolithic period seem to indicate simultaneously materialabandonment in the life history of buildings provide and symbolic roles (Peltenburg 1982; 2003a; Watkins 2004;archaeologists with a meaningful pattern against which floor Koutrafouri 2008), the termination of the life-cycle of a houseassemblages can be examined, and on the basis of which does not only reflect practical needs but also the symbolica variety of stories can be told. This approach does not connection to its occupants and therefore to their death. Ifcontradict our choice of highlighting specific occurrences we accept that ritual is a communication system of ritualisedin the archaeological record, but it sets them in a wider actions by practitioners who “have acted in view of dealingcontext and helps us realise that the occurrences reserved emotionally with situations of the reality, of understandingin special deposits constitute only a small component of and explaining themselves and their world, so that order, inthe repertoire of artifacts and behaviours one can observe the way they understand it, can be maintained” (Koutrafouri 4. Abandonment processes and closure ceremonies in prehistoric Cyprus: In search of ritual 35

House/floor Curate and discard strategies Number of finds Succession of abandonment episodes

Table 4.4 Curate and discard strategies, Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi, South Sector (data after Peltenburg 1982, 22–52). Shaded areas indicatethe lack of distinguishable floors and the existence of a continuous build up of occupation. The number of finds is not calculated for thesefloors. The distinction between identifiable patterns and scattered objects refers to cases where patterns in the distribution of objects couldbe discerned, due to their concentration against walls around domestic installations (hearths, benches and bins). The finds are mostlybone and stone tools.

2008, 95–96, 108), then the abandonment of a house as an particular site? and 2) Why is it doing so at this specific timeevent that created a new reality, and most probably had to of the prehistory of the island, the Late Neolithic period?be dealt with emotionally, can be seen as the ideal case for For the first question assessments are difficult. The onlythe exploration of such ritualised actions. observations one can make are that the deposition of usable The question about the role of material culture in artifacts is related to specific ‘events’ in the life history ofabandonment processes, however, still remains, especially houses; and that they do not seem to follow a widespreadsince patterns from Vrysi have no parallel in previous pattern of community beliefs about the way houses end theirperiods and because ethnoarchaeological evidence, while lives. The characteristics of a ritual that seeks to formulateidentifying the role of possessions in closure deposits as a sense of the interrelated nature of things and to reinforcea common feature of the whole ritual, makes no reference values that assume coherent interrelations, and they do soto how that material engagement came about. We seem to by virtue of their symbols, activities, organization, timinghave two questions here: 1) Why is material culture taking and relationships to other activities (Bell 1997), do notup a new role in the closure of some of the buildings at a seem to coincide with the restricted patterns observed to36 Demetra Papaconstantinou

date at Vrysi. Hence the important archaeological question Abandonment Processes in Archaeology:for the time being is not so much why certain houses The Value Lies in betweenwere associated with specific depositional patterns (i.e.on-floor, usable artefacts) but why the renewal of identity To more fully comprehend major episodes of house demise and rebuilding, it is necessary to contextualize such activities.and the termination of the symbolic and domestic use of For example, the ethnographic record supplies instances ofthat house had to be expressed through the deposition of abandonment ritual that strongly influenced the character ofusable items. assemblages. This brings us to the second issue, i.e. the specific timing.To address this question we should probably look at an (Peltenburg 2003b, 113)even wider archaeological context. According to Clarke, The above extract succinctly addresses the paradox thatthe evidence of stylistic behaviour, which characterises the characterises archaeological research in relation to andecorative schemes in the pottery of the island during this understanding of abandonment processes. The closestperiod, is the manifestation of symbolic style as a form of context we are trained to look at for the interpretation of“formal variation in material culture which is personally archaeological patterns is not the one we have in the field,based and which carries information supporting individual but that provided to us by the ethnographic record. To aidentity” (Clarke 2001, 72, citing Wiessner 1983, 258). certain degree this is understandable. “We see what weIf this is the case, then one could suggest that this new have seen,” as Bradley once said (1997), and it is almostenvironment of engagement with a certain type of material impossible to recognise patterns in the field without referringculture (pottery) through which individual identity is to something we already know (otherwise we would notexpressed triggered an entirely new relationship with have the words to describe them). Too much reliance onmovable artifacts and accelerated notions of property and the ethnoarchaeological record, however, might simplypossession in the construction of identity. This relationship, shift emphasis from the identification of cult areas towhich was unattested previously, did not have to be that of closure deposits and neglect a significant body ofmanifested only through pottery, but precisely because evidence that is available in the field. In acknowledgingpottery was so important for symbolic reasons, it could be this, we might need to act as historians or anthropologistsapplied in the depositional practices regarding other types when we get to the floor, but for the deposits between theof artifacts (for a similar discussion, see Hodder 2006). floors we must realise that we are pretty much on our own. Consequently, if architecture in the Aceramic Neolithic Exhausting this unique field of inquiry might be the onlyperiod had been a means of external symbolic storage, as chance we have to let history surprise us. Alongside thehas been suggested by Watkins (2004), then what we witness long ethnographic index of patterns with ritual deposits,in the Ceramic Neolithic phase is “a new range of artifacts archaeology can contribute an equally significant index ofitself undertaking a measure of external symbolic storage the types of abandonment processes one can observe in theand facilitating the development of new value systems” field. In this respect, archaeological depositional patterns(Renfrew 2004, 25). One could even go a step further have yet to be revealed.by suggesting that during the Ceramic Neolithic periodhouses lost their primacy as external symbolic storage asportable artifacts began to take over, reinforcing individualidentity. The abundance of artifacts in burials and the Acknowledgementseventual placement of burials outside of the settlements, I would like to thank Professor Trevor Watkins and Dr.a phenomenon that is manifested in later periods, might Vasiliki Koutrafouri as well as an anonymous reviewer fortherefore indicate two things: 1) the restrictive role that a their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. Part ofsimultaneously material and symbolic house can play in the this work was presented in the “Seminars for Interdisciplinaryconstruction of individual identity, especially when the latter Communication” in Athens (April 2008) and in The Sixthneeds to be manifested to the rest of the community; and World Archaeological Congress in Dublin (June 2008). I2) the fact that burial practices in cemeteries, by becoming am indebted to the participants of those meetings for thean ‘institutional fact’ and assuming an institutional role, feedback I gained there. Last but not least, I would like tocan more effectively serve larger sections of society and express my gratitude to Eddie Peltenburg for being such acan provide a more coherent basis for rituals involving great source of inspiration and for the guidance and supportthe whole of the community. If this is the case, then the he has so generously offered me all these years.deliberate deposition of usable artifacts on floors duringthe Late Neolithic is yet another example of a symbolicact that reinforces the role of movable artifacts at a timebefore cemeteries and graves goods become institutionalfacts (Renfrew 2001; 2004). 4. Abandonment processes and closure ceremonies in prehistoric Cyprus: In search of ritual 37

Introduction In this brief paper I will take recent work at a small

The development of archaeology is the product of many Chalcolithic site in central Cyprus as a starting point tofactors; as new techniques emerge, explanatory fashions consider the question of diversity in the Chalcolithic,come and go and new sites expand our database. Within this treading warily as befits a Bronze Age poacher in Eddie’smix individual scholars have a major influence through the Chalcolithic preserves.new material they expose and the way they define issuesand problem domains. This is certainly true for prehistoricCyprus where for over 30 years Eddie Peltenburg has laid Politiko-Kokkinorotsosout for us a material world of sites and artefacts and a virtualworld of ideas and explanatory models. The projects he has The summary that follows is largely based on excavationsmanaged at Kissonerga, Lemba and Souskiou define much carried out in 2006 and 2007 by Jenny Webb and myself,of what we now understand as Chalcolithic Cyprus. This, and studied with the very able assistance of Paul Croftinevitably, has not only expanded but also structures our and Carole McCartney upon whose insights I have drawnviews of this cultural system and its evolution. Our current extensively (Webb et al. in press; Webb in press).models of Chalcolithic sites and strategies are largely basedon these substantial villages of the southwest: here theexcavation of richer, more archaeologically productive sites The Siteforms a selective filter which can only be modified by the Politiko-Kokkinorotsos (henceforth Kokkinorotsos) is agradual expansion of archaeological research. small site in the northern foothills of the Troodos, two Material culture, primarily pottery, still has a primary kilometres west of Politiko (Fig. 5.1). It is situated on therole to play in establishing temporal variation. Our standard interface between the igneous formations of the Troodos andprocedures, of necessity, inherently assume uniform patterns the sedimentary structures of the northern half of Cyprus, inof change. In the absence of independent dating this the narrow valley of the Koufos River as it flows out of theinevitably militates against explorations of synchronic foothills to join the Pedeios, one of the main rivers whichdifferences. These may take many forms and be the product flow across the centre of the island. The site is defined by aof varied influences. The scale and nature of stylistic and discrete surface scatter of pottery of about 500 m2 in area.technological variation may reflect geographic distance Although originally thought on the basis of surface findsand corresponding degrees of social interaction. Raw to have material from the later 3rd millennium (Given andmaterial usage may be a matter of cultural choice or of Knapp 2003, 192–197, 265–266 as Politiko-Phournia),availability; so too may be alternative economic strategies. 12 AMS dates show that it was only used between aboutHere environmental factors come into play to influence or 2880 and 2670 cal BC. No extant traces of structures werestructure cultural choices. Alongside these are variations located, but very large quantities of pottery, stone and bonein types of sites and their associated arrays of material come from the fill of three irregular pits and an extremelyculture. large natural hollow (Fig. 5.2). All appears to be secondary 5. A different Chalcolithic: A central Cypriot scene 39

to the predominant fabric in Middle Chalcolithic Period 3B

at Kissonerga-Mosphilia and on other Middle Chalcolithic sites in the south and southwest. The unpainted pottery and the coarse ware used for low-fired flat-based pans or trays are also generally within the common Middle Chalcolithic tradition. In the field five general varieties of unpainted pottery were recognised, separated from one another largely on the basis of surface colour. In other respects, however, they do not form discrete groups. While there is some association of these fabrics with particular shapes, technologically theyFig. 5.1 Map of Cyprus showing the location of Politiko- do not differ significantly. A Principal Components AnalysisKokkinorotsos and other relevant sites. shows the broad overlap of the five unpainted varieties in attributes of fabric and surface treatment (Fig. 5.4). Of these, Fabric E is the most distinctive. This finer quality variety is distinguished by a lustrous all black surface and small vessel size. All the unpainted fabrics are, however, best viewed as varieties or diffuse sub-sets within a common range and so belong to a single tradition of ceramic production. The most common shapes are those seen at all other Middle Chalcolithic sites: deep spouted holemouth jars, tubular-spouted vessels, large storage jars and small and medium-sized bowls. These suggest that a wide array of activities, including the use of finer quality and decorated vessels, were carried out at the site, broadly similar to those seen elsewhere.

Flora and Fauna

Both wild and cultivated species are represented in the plant remains. Their quantification is difficult, given theFig. 5.2 General view of the site and excavations at Politiko- exigencies of deposition, fragmentation and sampling, butKokkinorotsos. nuts predominate. It is likely that these represent the har- vesting of wild plants; the same may be true for fruits such as olive, fig and grape. Barley and wheat are well represented and are most likely to be cultivated crops although they mayor even tertiary redeposition, perhaps a result of material not have been grown near Kokkinorotsos.from middens and other discard contexts being shovelled The fauna from the site are of particular importance.into holes and hollows to level the area during a short and Paul Croft’s analysis of 150 kg of animal bone (includingdeliberate episode of clearance. more than 7,000 identifiable pieces of large mammalian Several explanations can be advanced for the lack bone) shows that it was dominated by fallow deer (Damaof structural evidence at Kokkinorotsos. One is that the mesopotamica). Deer make up three-quarters of identifiedChalcolithic buildings were entirely, perhaps deliberately, fragments in the assemblage; almost all the remainderdemolished in the 3rd millennium. A second is that they were sheep with a small number of goats and pigs (Fig.were removed in later times by erosion and other landscape 5.5). Although deer are the major contributor to the diettransformations. A third is that there never were any other at contemporary sites, they do not dominate to the samethan ephemeral, light, perhaps temporary structures at the extent as at Kokkinorotsos. Equally, if not more importantly,site. These, too, could have been deliberately demolished. however, is the total concentration on hunting: unlike other Middle Chalcolithic sites, none of the animals at Kokkinorotsos appear to have been herded.Pottery Two lines of evidence point toward this. One is based onOver one tonne of pottery was recovered from the excavated estimates of the ages at which animals were killed. The agearea (Fig. 5.3). The great majority is unpainted, but there profiles of caprines and deer are very similar, matching thoseis a significant component of Red on White ware, similar of hunted deer elsewhere (as at Bronze Age Marki-Alonia)40 David Frankel

Fig. 5.3 A selection of sherds from Politiko-Kokkinorotsos.

5. A different Chalcolithic: A central Cypriot scene 41

Fig. 5.4 Principle Components Analysis of pottery attributes showing

Fig. 5.5 Relative importance of animal species at Politiko-the general overlap of varieties of pottery. Kokkinorotsos compared with Middle Chalcolithic Kissonerga- Mosphilia and Lemba-Lakkous (data from Croft 1985; 1998).

and differing significantly from those expected of herded

animals. The other is the representation of body parts. Onceagain these fit with a pattern characteristic of hunting wherethose elements with less meat (such as the head and lowerlimbs) are normally left at the kill site and are thereforeunder-represented in site assemblages.

Stone ToolsCarole McCartney’s analysis of the assemblage of 5,704chipped stone artefacts demonstrates that the full range ofactivities associated with core reduction and tool productionis represented. Although some types were probably broughtready-made to the site, most were manufactured andrejuvenated there. Three-quarters of the chipped stone Fig. 5.6 Proportional occurrence of the main chipped stone artefactsartefacts are of Lefkara basal chert, a moderate to good types at Politiko-Kokkinorotsos.quality raw material probably collected from the local riverbed. This, and the other types of stone, can all be found inthe vicinity of the site. Knappers at Kokkinorotsos employed a simple core signs of silica gloss such as would result from harvestingtechnology that fits well within the Cypriot Chalcolithic. or cutting plants.It is primarily a flake-based industry with few blades or Most of the varied types of ground stone tools were madebladelets. The tool assemblage is heavily dominated by three from readily available igneous rocks. The most commonmajor classes: pièces esquillées, scrapers and burins, which are rubbers or querns, accounting for over a quarter of thetogether make up two-thirds of the tools (Fig. 5.6). All can sample. Other heavy duty tools such as pounders are alsobe associated with butchery or with processing animals. well represented, but there are comparatively few cuttingPièces esquillées are likely to have been used as wedges or wood-working tools (Fig. 5.7). While all tool types showfor splitting bone, the scrapers for cleaning hides, and the high rates of breakage, this was particularly true of rubbers,burins for working with antler or bone. Most other chipped querns and bowls, all of which were incomplete. Thesestone tool types are found in smaller quantities, suggesting were clearly among the most intensively utilised as wellthat a relatively limited range of activities were carried out as the most common artefacts in the assemblage. The highat the site. There are, for example, very few pieces showing breakage rate of simple pounders also suggests heavy use.42 David Frankel

Ambeikou-Ayios Georghios in the Cyprus Museum. There

are, in addition, a handful of Dentalium and other shells and a picrolite bead. Although the function of the dozens of modified sherds remains unclear, they, together with these other items, show that some general activities seen on other Chalcolithic sites also took place at Kokkinorotsos.

Activities and Function

At first sight various elements at Kokkinorotsos tell different stories. The lack of structures, the exclusive presence of hunted animals, and the high proportion of chipped stone tools associated with butchery or processing animal products, together with the lack of agricultural tools or those appropriate for forest clearance or timber-working, all strongly point to a site used intermittently, perhaps seasonally, specifically for hunting. The timing of mouflon culling indicates that this was likely to have been in the spring and summer. Other artefacts – the storage jars, the spouted pottery vessels useful for handling liquids, the domesticated cereals and the grinding equipment – indicate that a variety of activities were carried out and other types of food were prepared and consumed. The finer, decorated pottery figurines and personal items such as beads also indicate a broader range of behaviour. These varied aspects can, however, be reconciled. The site is best understood as primarily a hunters’ camp; a base used, perhaps seasonally, for forays into the surrounding woodland and for preparing hides and other products from the resulting quarry. The pottery and other material suggest that these were not brief periods of use, but that the siteFig. 5.7 Proportional occurrence of main functional categories was occupied for longer periods, perhaps weeks or evenof ground stone tools from Politiko-Kokkinorotsos compared with months at a time, possibly by family groups rather than byMiddle and Late Chalcolithic Kissonerga-Mosphilia and Lemba-Lakkous (data from Elliott 1985; Elliott-Xenophontos 1998). hunters alone. The pottery is likely, therefore, to have been brought to the site along with agricultural produce and other supplies from a more permanent larger settlement, perhaps situated some distance away, either closer to the coast orOther Items in the more open and productive floodplain of the PedeiosAlongside the more common artefact types noted above a River, perhaps in the vicinity of Nicosia. In such a modelsmall number of bone and antler tools were recovered. The Kokkinorotsos functioned as one, special purpose componentformer include spatulate implements and points showing of a Chalcolithic economic and settlement system built aroundevidence of the application of considerable pressure during a larger, more permanently occupied agro-pastoral village.use, and a needle. The latter are principally cut from antlerswith evidence of concentric grooving and snapping tofacilitate beam removal. While these clearly indicate on-siteprocessing, the number of worked fragments is very small in Kokkinorotsos in Contextcomparison to the size of the faunal sample, suggesting that Limited material and uncertain dating inhibit other discussionsantler working was not a major activity at Kokkinorotsos. of variability in the archaeological record of Neolithic A few other items are of less immediately practical and Chalcolithic Cyprus. For example, in the absence ofutility. These include fragments of two Red on White independent dating differences between contemporary sitesanthropomorphic figurines similar to examples from Middle in the presence or proportional occurrence of diagnosticChalcolithic levels at Kissonerga-Mosphilia and Souskiou- pottery are hard to assess (cf Stanley Price 1979, 43). This isVathyrkakas (Goring 1991; 1998, 154–158; 2006) as well made more difficult by the uneven representation of materialas other sites, including an unpublished fragment from from different parts of the island. 5. A different Chalcolithic: A central Cypriot scene 43

Regional variation is a common theme in Cypriot One approach to understanding Chalcolithic settlementprehistory (Frankel 2009), but we have still to come to terms history emphasises periodic collapse with a local fissioningwith what spatial differences in material culture (generally or restructuring of specific systems due to social forces;pottery) mean in terms of social relationships at different another explains broader-scale developments by reference toscales of distance and intensity. In some cases divergence climatic deterioration or amelioration. Following the lattermay be the result of inherent processes of cultural ‘drift’ approach, the settlement hiatus between the Middle andas new types or varieties develop in separated areas and Late Chalcolithic at Kissonerga-Mosphilia and other south-gradually become increasingly common. The rate and degree western sites is attributed to a decline in resource availabilityof these developments can vary considerably, confusing our (Peltenburg 1993). The occupation of Kokkinorotsos at thisability to establish contemporaneity or levels of interaction. time could then be regarded as a symptom of a widespreadWhere other mechanisms come into play varied degrees of reversion to low intensity occupation and an increasedmaterial difference can signal degrees of social interaction, emphasis on mobile hunting strategies, such as that whichdefining for us – and possibly for people of the time – social may have characterised the early phases of the Earlyidentity at a different scale (Webb, this volume). There is Chalcolithic (Clarke 2007; Wasse 2007, 62).at present no reason to see the latter aspect as significant in This would account for the size, location and nature ofthe regional variations in ceramics during the Chalcolithic. the excavated remains and the concentration on huntingWhile specific longer distance chains of connection linking although not for the importation of cereals and other goods.different parts of the island are indicated by the presence In addition, any broad climatic deterioration would have hadof picrolite and marine shells at Kokkinorotsos, general an even greater impact in the centre of the island than in therelationships and an associated diffusion of techniques and better favoured environments in the southern coastal plains.styles account for the broad similarity of the pottery and It is therefore unlikely that such a settlement collapse in theother material culture. south would have led to an increase in activity in poorer The ceramic assemblage at Kokkinorotsos is, not areas. At a different scale, specific catastrophic events aresurprisingly, most similar to material from other sites in also sometimes adduced to explain disruptions to establishedthe central region of Cyprus, notably Ambelikou-Ayios patterns (Peltenburg 1978; 1982, 65; Stanley Price 1979,Georghios, Philia-Drakos site B and Kyra-Alonia, which 73–77; Todd and Croft 2004, 222, 225). Although it iscontain the same array of unpainted, painted and coarse possible that the localised impact of natural disasters suchfabrics (Dikaios 1962, 141–155). In these central lowland as earthquakes might have had a short-lived effect onand foothill sites unpainted wares dominate. This contrasts particular settlements, these need not have had more thanwith the southwest where a high proportion of painted pottery transient effects. Elsewhere in the world, even where moreis seen as characteristic of the earlier third millennium (i.e. devastating events such as volcanic eruptions blanket landthe Middle Chalcolithic) and only replaced by monochrome with lava or ash, the effects are not always negative andwares in the Late Chalcolithic. Many years ago, on the may be surprisingly short-lived, while the social contextbasis of very limited evidence, Stanley Price argued for a is a critical factor in determining responses (Sheets 1979,distinctly different trajectory of pottery change in different 555–58; Grattan and Torrence 2007).parts of the island. North of the Troodos an earlier emphasis Seen in this way, neither more general nor very specificon monochrome pottery preceded a greater use of painted natural factors provide an adequate explanation for island-wares – the reverse of the sequence in the south (Stanley wide developments involving the emergence of sitesPrice 1979, 38, 46, figs 8–9). Such broad regional variations like Kokkinorotsos. Rather than being seen primarilyin pottery production provide one possible explanation for as a response to environmental events, it is more likelythe low representation of painted pottery at Kokkinorotsos that small-scale, periodically inhabited hunting villagesat a time when these wares dominated elsewhere. like Kokkinorotsos may always have been part of the The consistency of the 12 radiocarbon dates place Chalcolithic landscape and one of a number of site typesoccupation between 2900 and 2700 cal BC. While the in contemporary use.closest Chalcolithic sites (Ambelikou, Kyra and Philia) At other Chalcolithic sites a mixture of wild andare likely to be broadly contemporary, its period of use domesticated animals are in evidence with a concomitanttherefore falls within an apparent hiatus between Middle and variation in the proportional representation of sets of stoneLate Chalcolithic in the sequence at Kissonerga-Mosphilia tools associated with butchery (Fig. 5.8). The variabilityand elsewhere. Apart from the central Cypriot sites, only between assemblages in these two aspects is such that nothe recently excavated site of Souskiou-Laona fills the simple chronological trend can be observed. Kokkinorotsoschronological gap (Peltenburg personal communication). differs in demonstrating a total focus on hunted, wildThis raises the question of whether the site represents a animals. As discussed above, this is best explained byspecific response to particular events or is part of a more regarding Kokkinorotsos as a special purpose hunting stationdeeply embedded, longer-lasting tradition. while other sites had a more varied function.44 David Frankel

Variation in functional site types is more evident in some

periods of Cypriot prehistory than in others. This is in part a product of site survival and identification together with the history of research. It may also be that some cultural systems had more clearly distinct settlement types than did others. So, for example, several functional site types are well recognised for the Late Bronze Age, including urban centres, mining sites and agricultural villages (Catling 1962; Keswani 1993; Webb and Frankel 1994; Knapp 1997), but as yet no such structured differences have been identified during most of the Early and Middle Cypriot periods. Kokkinorotsos, seen in this analysis as a special-purpose hunting station distinct from a primary, permanent agro- pastoral village, opens up the possibility that community territories may have been made up of a series of sites, each the focus of particular activities appropriate to their ecological setting. In this way a main contribution of Kokkinorotsos to our understanding of the Chalcolithic is toFig. 5.8 Proportions of chipped stone artefact types associated with expose more of the complexity and variability in the culturalbutchery compared with the estimated contribution of deer to the system. It expands the frameworks, providing, perhaps,meat supply at Chalcolithic sites. more questions than answers: but that, surely, is the nature of all archaeological research.

This explanation also fits with the lack of formal Acknowledgements

structures at Kokkinorotsos, in contrast to the ‘classic’ As on so many occasions I am especially grateful to JennyMiddle Chalcolithic sites where large, well built circular Webb, co-director of the Kokkinorotsos project. I havehouses are the norm both in the south-west and north of the also relied heavily on the work of Paul Croft and CaroleTroodos. Some other sites, such as those near Kalavasos, McCartney, who provided the essential documentation,also appear to lack evidence of substantial above ground analysis and insights regarding the animal bones and chippedbuildings (Todd and Croft 2004; Clarke et al. 2007), stone on which any understanding of the site depends.which may either have been entirely destroyed, have yet Funding was provided by the Australian Research Councilto be found or never existed (cf Todd 1987, 29). There is, with additional support from La Trobe University.however, a wider variety of pits and tunnels in the Kalavasossites, features also common in the Early Chalcolithic.These sometimes have internal features which indicatetheir possible use for storage or some specific activities Referenceseven if they were not general dwellings (Todd and Croft Catling, H. W. 1962. Patterns of settlement in Bronze Age Cyprus.2004, 220–23; Clarke et al. 2007, 49). The irregular pits at Opuscula Atheniensia 4, 129–169.Kokkinorotsos, therefore, also differ from these features, Clarke, J. 2007. On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus duringagain suggesting a low intensity of occupation. the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. Oxford, Oxbow. Contemporary sets of neighbouring Chalcolithic settle- Clarke, J., P. Croft and C. McCartney 2007. The 1940s excavationsments are often regarded as forming site clusters with at Kalavasos-Kokkinogia and Kalavasos-Pamboules. Report ofa complex history of associated phases of expansion, the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 45–86.contraction, abandonment and re-establishment (Peltenburg Croft, P. W. 1985. The mammalian fauna. In E. Peltenburg et al., Lemba Archaeological Project 1: Excavations at Lemba1993; 1998; 2003, 272). The sites are, for the most part, seen Lakkous 1976–1983, 202–208. Studies in Mediterraneanas equivalent to one another, differing in size rather than kind, Archaeology 70(1). Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag.with the possible exception of the Souskiou complex which Croft, P. W. 1998. Animal remains: Synopsis. In E. Peltenburgmay have been a regional integrative centre (Peltenburg 2006). et al., Lemba Archaeological Project II(1A): ExcavationsKokkinorotsos (and perhaps sites such as Kalavasos-Ayious) at Kissonerga-Mosphilia 1979–1992, 205–214. Studies incan also be seen as an example of a functionally different Mediterranean Archaeology 70(2). Jonsered, Paul Åströmssite type, distinct from the ‘normative’ permanent settlements Förlag.such as Lemba-Lakkous and Kissonerga-Mosphilia. Dikaios, P. 1962. The Stone Age. In P. Dikaios and J. R. B. Stewart, 5. A different Chalcolithic: A central Cypriot scene 45

THOUGHTS ON THE FUNCTION OF ‘PUBLIC BUILDINGS’

IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Hermann Genz

Introduction In the light of this controversy it is somewhat surprising

With his excavations at Jerablus Tahtani Eddie Peltenburg that little work has been done on the nature and function ofhas greatly enhanced our understanding of the emergence the so-called public buildings that have been excavated atand development of complex societies in the Northern a number of Early Bronze Age II–III sites in the SouthernLevant. Although in contemporary societies of the Southern Levant (Fig. 6.1). While the study of domestic householdsLevant no elite tombs comparable with Tomb 302 at Jerablus has made great progress in recent years (Chesson 1997; IlanTahtani (Peltenburg 1999) are attested, the presence of 2001; Chesson 2003), public buildings are still often onlya number of public buildings suggests that elites there described according to their architectural layout (Kempinskiplayed a somewhat different, but equally decisive role in 1992a; 1992b). This is certainly due to the fact that forthe emergence of complexity. earlier excavations contextual information for the contents In the traditional view, the transition from the Early Bronze of the buildings and individual rooms is mostly lacking. AAge I to the Early Bronze Age II, dated to c. 3100 cal BC few examples from recent excavations, however, offer newaccording to recent radiocarbon dates, marks the beginning insights into the possible functions of these buildings.of urban settlements in the Southern Levant (Kempinski1978; Kenyon 1979, 84–86; Esse 1989; Miroschedji 1989;Mazar 1990, 108). These urban settlements are characterisedby a dense population concentration in an area restricted by Templesfortification walls, and especially by the presence of public Although a multitude of papers deal with Early Bronzebuildings, generally called ‘palaces’ and ‘temples’. Age temples of the Southern Levant (Amiran 1981; Mazar It has only recently become clear that the urbanisation 1990, 125–126; Kempinski 1992a; Miroschedji 1993; Philipof the Southern Levant followed quite a different trajectory 2001, 175–176), there is still insufficient evidence for afrom that of Mesopotamia and that the urban sites of the clear definition of their precise function. In recent yearsSouthern Levant are not simply down-scaled versions of more systematic definitions of how to identify cult buildingsMesopotamian cities (Falconer and Savage 1995; Chesson in the archaeological record have greatly enhanced ourand Philip 2003, 8). Thus the earlier idea of secondary understanding of religion and cult practice in pre-literatestate formation triggered by developments in Mesopotamia societies (Renfrew 1985, 11–26; Alon and Levy 1989).(Kempinski 1978; Kenyon 1979, 84–86) is no longer However, not all of these can be directly applied to theacceptable. Early Bronze Age Southern Levant for a variety of reasons Recently even the existence of truly urban settlements in further discussed below.the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age has been The majority of scholars have focussed on architecturalquestioned (Philip 2001; Chesson and Philip 2003), and plans as the major element for defining temples. There seemsother models such as ‘corporate village’, ‘heterarchy’ and to be a general agreement that the layout of Early Bronze‘middle range society’ have been suggested to describe the Age temples in the Southern Levant followed the broadroomEarly Bronze Age settlements of the Southern Levant. model, but when it comes to the identification of specific 6. Thoughts on the function of ‘public buildings’ in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant 47

Therefore the discussion of temples will be restricted to

the most completely excavated examples: temples 4040, 5192, 5269 and the circular platform from stratum XV at Megiddo (Loud 1948, 78–84; Kempinski 1989, 28–35; Esse 1991, 87–89) and the sacred precinct in the Upper City of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Mittmann 1994, 13–14; Genz 2002, 94–96; see Fig. 6.2), both of which date to Early Bronze Age III. Both at Megiddo and at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon the cultic complexes are situated in the highest parts of the settlements. Although their layout is different, both complexes consist of three major broadroom structures and a large circular stone platform, and both are enclosed by a wall. The broadroom structures at Megiddo and Khirbet ez- Zeraqon are remarkably similar, showing a main rectangular room with the entrance in one of the long walls and benches or podia opposite the entrance. Two stone slabs placed on the axis of the room served as bases for wooden pillars supporting the roof. At both sites the broadrooms had anterooms. At Megiddo these were entirely open to the front and only had two pillar bases indicating that they also were roofed. At Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, however, the antae of buildings B0.4 and B0.5 showed a right-angle bend and thus partly closed the anterooms. Nevertheless, as at Megiddo two stone pillar bases were attested. Only building B0.1 in Khirbet ez-Zeraqon differs in its layout as it lacks an anteroom. Instead it has a narrow rectangular room attached to the back of the main room. There seems to be general agreement that the buildings just discussed indeed served as temples. Their specific ground plans, and the fact that they lack installations suchFig. 6.1 Early Bronze Age II–III sites with public buildingsmentioned in the text. as ovens, fireplaces and grinding installations, preclude their identification as domestic buildings. The podia opposite the entrances definitely served as focal points in the main rooms. While it is generally assumed that thesebuildings as temples, opinions still widely differ. Thus, for podia served to display the images of deities, it needs toinstance, the so-called sacred area at Arad (Amiran 1981, be pointed out that neither Megiddo, Khirbet ez-Zeraqon49) is now generally regarded as a domestic structure (Mazar nor any other presumed Early Bronze Age temple from1990, 126; Kempinski 1992a, 57). Also the ‘bâtiment blanc’ the Southern Levant has provided any evidence for suchat Tel Yarmuth, first identified as a temple (Miroschedji images. It may be assumed, of course, that such images1988, 40–41; 1993, 208–211) has been stripped of that status consisted of perishable materials such as wood. However,by the excavator himself (Miroschedji 1999, 9–10). Lastly, even the (admittedly scanty) iconographic evidence of thethe suggestion that the ‘Acropolis Building’ at cAi/et-Tell Early Bronze Age Southern Levant, such as clay figurines orwas converted from a temple to a palace at the transition cylinder seal impressions (Ben-Tor 1977; Miroschedji 1993,from the Early Bronze Age II to the Early Bronze Age III 211–212), does not depict any images of divinities. The(Callaway 1972, 292–293) rests more on speculations than anthropomorphic figures which are occasionally depictedon hard evidence. It has to be noted that no other case of are more likely to be human worshippers. Thus we notthe conversion of a religious to a secular building is attested only lack information on how Early Bronze Age divinitiesfor the Bronze Age Near East. were depicted, but we do not even know whether they were Many problems connected with the identification of depicted at all. Based on evidence mainly dating back tocult buildings and the interpretation of their function are the Chalcolithic period, de Miroschedji (1993, 213–216)generally based on incomplete excavation and publication has reconstructed a divine couple for the Early Bronzeas well as, for the earlier excavations, a lack of detailed Age comprising a female deity connected with water and arecording of objects and other materials associated with male deity represented by horned animals such as rams orthese buildings. ibexes. Definite proof for such a divine couple in the Early48 Hermann Genz

Bronze Age is still lacking, however. In addition, it has to and goat. It remains unclear what happened to the restbe pointed out that in Stratum XV at Megiddo three temples of the meat, but it can be assumed that it was consumedexisted simultaneously. either by the specialists who conducted or supervised the Regardless of what happened inside the broadroom ceremonies, or even by all the participants. In this respect itbuildings, the restricted space inside the rooms suggests is interesting to note that B0.2, very likely a service buildingonly a small number of participants at a time; thus access situated directly north of the altar in Khirbet ez-Zeraqon,to the buildings clearly must have been limited to specific contained installations and pottery vessels connected togroups of the community. food preparation (Genz 2002, 95) although again for only The round stone platforms attested at Megiddo and Khirbet a limited number of people due to its rather small size andez-Zeraqon are generally interpreted as altars. Indeed, the the presence of only a few cooking pots.remains of burnt animal bones were directly associated with Except for the animal sacrifices there is little evidencethis structure at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Mittmann 1994, 13; for other kinds of offerings. Philip (2001, 176) has notedB. Dechert, personal communication). Unfortunately, no the general absence of offering pits in Early Bronze Ageevidence is available for Megiddo, but it seems reasonable to temples in contrast to their marked presence in Middle andassume that both structures served the same purpose, namely Late Bronze Age cultic contexts. The only exception couldas altars for animal sacrifices. At Khirbet ez-Zeraqon the be the deposit of 21 semi-complete or complete vesselslarge courtyard around the platform allowed the participation deposited in a stone-lined pit (R0.11/i0.3) in the courtyardof larger numbers of people in such events. The majority of the cultic complex at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Genz 2002,of the burnt bones consist of the lower leg bones of sheep 95–96 and pl. 3–8). 6. Thoughts on the function of ‘public buildings’ in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant 49

Also noteworthy is the general absence of ritual objects. Tell es-Saidiyeh it is not even clear whether we are dealingIn addition to a lack of all kinds of cult images, other with one building (Tubb et al. 1996, 20) or two buildingsobjects, such as incense burners or offering stands, which separated by an open space as the most recent report suggestscharacterise later Middle and Late Bronze Age temples, are (Tubb et al. 1997, 64).not attested in the Early Bronze Age. The only exception is All of these public buildings consist of a large number ofagain found at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon where the occurrence of rooms of varying sizes connected by courtyards and corridors.small ceramic bowls with snake applications is restricted While the buildings at Tel Yarmuth and possibly at Megiddoto the cultic complex in the Upper City (Genz 2002, 102). seem to have been erected according to a preconceived planThus they may be interpreted as vessels with a specific (Miroschedji 1999, 10; 2001), at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon differentcultic function. building stages can clearly be recognised, as building B0.8 Philip (2001, 176) has observed that Early Bronze was added some time after the more solidly executed partsAge temples in the Southern Levant are never associated B0.7 and B0.10 had been erected (Fig. 6.2). Access to thesewith storage and administrative features. Thus it can buildings seems to have been restricted as demonstratedbe concluded that temples had an exclusively religious by the walls surrounding ‘palace B’ at Tel Yarmuth andfunction. Among the rituals performed, animal sacrifices building 3177 at Megiddo. Also, for the building at Khirbetand food consumption, very likely for a limited number of ez-Zeraqon only one entrance has been identified. The carefulparticipants, can be identified as the main activities in the and solid construction of these buildings, as well as theircultic complexes. While some of the criteria established layout, clearly shows that they were at least partly constructedby Renfrew (1985, 11–26) for the identification of cult for representational purposes such as receptions. Indeed,buildings are thus fulfilled, such as special location, special evidence for food consumption on a larger scale is attestedlayout, the existence of boundary walls between sacred at Tell es-Saidiyeh (Tubb et al. 1997, 62). However, the mostand profane areas, and the presence of focal points in the prominent function of these buildings was for storage. Atbuildings, others are lacking, especially evidence for cultic Tel Yarmuth more than 150 large pithoi were discovered inparaphernalia, religious symbols and images of divinities. the rooms of ‘palace B’ (Miroschedji 1999, 11–12) while at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Genz 2002, 96–97 and pl. 25–37) and at Tell es-Saidiyeh (Tubb et al. 1997, 59–62) large numbers of storage vessels were found.Palaces The quantity of goods stored in ‘palace B’ at Tel YarmuthNon-religious public buildings have traditionally been clearly must have exceeded the needs of the people possiblytermed ‘palaces’ (Mazar 1990, 123; Kempinski 1992b, 78). living in this building. It has to be kept in mind that theThis term generally implies that these buildings served as inhabitants of the domestic dwellings kept their ownelite residences as indeed is attested for Near Eastern palaces supplies as attested by numerous pithoi and storage jarsfrom the Middle Bronze Age onwards. The Early Bronze discovered in such buildings (Genz 2002, 99–104). ThusAge in the Southern Levant, however, is characterised by in the administrative complexes the surplus not needed fora notable lack of features associated with elites, such as immediate consumption seems to have been stored. Theprestige objects made of precious or exotic materials or nature of the vessels discovered suggests mainly the storageelaborate and richly furnished tombs (Genz 2000, 58; Philip of valuable liquids such as oil or wine (Genz 2003). It is2001, 165). It is therefore advisable to use a more general not known whether these commodities were collected in theterm for these buildings such as ‘administrative structures’ administrative buildings for trade or for other purposes, andas has been suggested by Philip (2001, 176–178). Such the methods of recording and administrating these goodsadministrative structures are so far only known from four remain unclear. While marking systems such as cylindersites: ‘palace 3177’ at Megiddo (Loud 1948, 70–76; Esse seal impressions (Flender 2000) and incised signs on pots1991, 83–84; Kempinski 1992b, 78); ‘palace B’ in Tel (Genz 2001) are widely attested during the Early BronzeYarmuth (Miroschedji 1999, 10–12); the ‘palace’ in the Age in the Southern Levant, they cannot yet be conclusivelyUpper City of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Mittmann 1994, 14; linked to the administrative buildings as they also frequentlyGenz 2002, 96; see Fig. 6.2); and the so-called commercial occur in domestic dwellings.building in Field 1 from stratum L2 on the Lower tell at Telles-Saidiyeh (Tubb et al. 1997, 55–65). While the formerthree date to the Early Bronze Age III, the building at Telles-Saidiyeh is firmly dated to Early Bronze Age II. Other Buildings of a Public Nature Only ‘palace B’ at Tel Yarmuth has been completely The so-called ‘granary’ from Early Bronze Age III levels atexcavated. The incomplete exposure of the other three Beth Yerah is thus far unique in the Southern Levant, but itsbuildings makes a study of their layout and an interpretation interpretation as a granary is generally accepted (Esse 1991,of their function rather difficult. In the case of the building at 53; Kempinski 1992b, 75–78; Mazar 2001). According50 Hermann Genz

to Mazar’s calculations (2001, 458), its storage capacity the gate house of the city gate (Douglas 2007, 46–47 andconsiderably exceeded the needs of the city’s inhabitants, Abb. 3–4; see Fig. 6.3). The layout of the building, asespecially if additional storage in domestic dwellings is well as the fact that it did not contain any installations fortaken into consideration. Thus it is very likely that only the food storage and preparation, precludes its interpretationsurplus not needed for immediate consumption was stored as a domestic building. Instead the building seems to havein this building, either for trading or as a reserve for times been linked to the city gate. This is suggested by the closeof famine. proximity of the two structures, but even more so by the fact The broadroom in the centre of the structure has been that B1.5 was abandoned and replaced by a large open courtinterpreted as a sanctuary by some scholars (see Mazar shortly before the city gate went out of use by being blocked2001, 454–455) although this interpretation is by no means (Douglas 2007, Abb. 5). Unfortunately, the lack of in situsecure. Unlike temples in Mesopotamia there is so far no finds in B1.5 prevents a secure determination of its specificother evidence that temples in the Southern Levant had any function. The building may have had a military function tocontrol over agricultural production, as mentioned above. accommodate off-duty guards, or an administrative function A completely different type of public building was for the registration of the flow of goods and people throughexcavated in the Lower City of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, dating the gate.to the later parts of the Early Bronze Age II and the earlier An almost identical building is attested in Tel Yarmuthparts of the Early Bronze Age III (Douglas 2007, 7). Situated with the ‘bâtiment blanc’ (Miroschedji 1988, 35–41; 1999,directly east of the Lower City gate, building B1.5 consists 9–10), and there the building is also situated reasonablyof a large rectangular room with a row of column bases close to a city gate; thus a similar function as for B1.5 atalong its axis and a large courtyard between the room and Khirbet ez-Zeraqon may be suggested. 6. Thoughts on the function of ‘public buildings’ in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant 51

in the Early Bronze Age Levant from Mediterranean andAlthough admittedly few public buildings from urban Levantine perspectives. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeologysettlements in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant 16, 3–16.have been discovered so far, it has to be kept in mind Douglas, K. 2007. Die Befestigung der Unterstadt von Hirbetthat extremely few sites have been excavated on a large ez-Zeraqon (Deutsch-jordanische Ausgrabungen in Hirbet ez-scale. It can be assumed that public buildings formed a Zeraqon 1984–1994. Endberichte Band III/1. Abhandlungen desregular component of at least medium to large-sized urban Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 27(3). Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.settlements in the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Esse, D. L. 1989. Secondary state formation and collapse in EarlyAge II–III. A surprisingly large variety of public buildings Bronze Age Palestine. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.) L’urbanisationis attested, ranging from religious to administrative and de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectivesstorage structures. Even with the limited amount of public des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüsbuildings available, some kind of standardised plan for (20–24 octobre 1986), 81–96. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford, British Archaeologicalbuildings of different functions can be discerned in the Reports.Southern Levant and even beyond. The existence of a larger Esse, D. L. 1991. Subsistence, Trade and Social Change in Earlyvariety of presumably standardised public buildings seems Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizationsto suggest the existence of more complex societies organised 50. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.beyond the level of kinship ties in the Southern Levant Falconer, S. E. and S. Savage 1995. Heartlands and hinterlands:than has been acknowledged in recent discussions (Philip Alternative trajectories of early urbanization in Mesopotamia2001; Chesson 2003). While this does not imply a return and the southern Levant. American Antiquity 60, 37–58.to the city-state model prevalent before the 1990s (Esse Flender, M. 2000. Cylinder seal impressed vessels of the Early1989; Miroschedji 1989), it certainly suggests that elites Bronze Age III in northern Palestine. In G. Philip and D. Bairdhad important functions in economic and administrative (eds) Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of theprocesses, as suggested by Joffe (1993). Elites in these Southern Levant, 295–313. Levantine Archaeology 2. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press.societies do not seem to have invested their wealth in Genz, H. 2000. The organization of Early Bronze Age metal-prestige objects and elaborate burial structures but rather working in the southern Levant. Paléorient 26, 55–65.in the economic and administrative sector. This suggestion Genz, H. 2001. Early Bronze Age potmarks from Khirbat az-is in accordance with the staple finance model, which has Zayraq n: Some aspects concerning their meaning. Studies inpreviously been proposed for the Early Bronze Age society the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7, 217–228.of the Southern Levant (Philip 2001; Genz 2003). In Genz, H. 2002. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von Hirbetorder to fully understand the socio-political and economic ez-Zeraqon, Nordjordanien. Mit Studien zur Chronologiedevelopments of societies during the Early Bronze Age in und funktionalen Deutung frühbronzezeitlicher Keramik inthe Southern Levant, public buildings should not be treated der südlichen Levante (Deutsch-jordanische Ausgrabungenas exceptions but as integral parts of the social systems in Hirbet ez-Zeraqon 1984–1994. Endberichte Band V.which produced them. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 27(2). Wies- baden, Harrassowitz. Genz, H. 2003. Cash crop production and storage in the Early Bronze Age southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 59–78.References Ilan, O. 2001. Household archaeology at Arad and Ai in the EarlyAlon, D. and T. E. Levy 1989. The archaeology of cult and the Bronze Age II. In S. R. Wolff (ed.) Studies in the Archaeology Chalcolithic sanctuary at Gilat. Journal of Mediterranean of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, Archaeology 2, 163–221. 317–354. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 59. Chicago,Amiran, R. 1981. Some observations on Chalcolithic and Early Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Bronze Age sanctuaries and religion. In A. Biran (ed.) Temples Joffe, A. H. 1993. Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I and High Places in Biblical Times, 47–53. Jerusalem, Hebrew and II Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction in Union College. a Small-scale Complex Society. Monographs in MediterraneanBen-Tor, A. 1977. Cult scenes on Early Bronze Age cylinder seal Archaeology 4. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. impressions from Palestine. Levant 9, 90–100. Kempinski, A. 1978. The Rise of an Urban Culture: The Urban-Callaway, J. A. 1972. The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at cAi (et- isation of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age 3000–2150 Tell). London, Quaritch. B.C. Israel Ethnographic Society Studies 4. Jerusalem, IsraelChesson, M. S. 1997. Urban Households in Early Bronze Age Ethnographic Society. Communities of Syro-Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Kempinski, A. 1989. Megiddo: A City State and Royal Centre in Harvard University. North Israel. Materialien zur Allgemeinen und VergleichendenChesson, M. S. 2003. Households, houses, neighborhoods and Archäologie 40. Munich, Beck. corporate villages: Modeling the Early Bronze Age as a house Kempinski, A. 1992a. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Temples. society. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 79–102. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds) The Architecture of Ancient52 Hermann Genz

EARLY URBAN COMMUNITIES AND

THE EMERGENCE OF THE STATE 7

THE TELL: SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY

AND TERRITORIAL SPACE

Tony Wilkinson

Introduction Tells and their landscapes were probably different from

The tell is the dominant feature of the archaeological region to region, even within the same area. Whereaslandscape of the northern Fertile Crescent, and in recent some will have been dominated by palaces and temples,years excavations have enabled archaeologists to make others would mainly have comprised domestic houses,great strides in the understanding of the social archaeology storage, or cult structures. For example, in the region ofof the tell. This paper is dedicated to Eddie Peltenburg, who Tell Beydar the Beydar cuneiform texts implicitly assess theamong Near Eastern archaeologists has been a vigorous agricultural potential of the subordinate tells by referringproponent of the need to extract social interpretations from to the numbers of draft animals (Widell 2004), but theyarchaeological data. Whereas the excavators of settlement also highlight that one of those sites, Sulum, was a centreand burial sites have progressed significantly in their quest of religion (Sallaberger and Ur 2004). Although it is notfor a new social archaeology, archaeological surveyors, on known which site corresponds to ancient Sulum, all tells inthe other hand, have tended to focus upon the landscape the Tell Beydar complex appear at least superficially similar,and economic features associated with tells and related sites and from surface inspection it is not evident which could berather than on the social archaeology of their surrounding a religious centre and which were devoted to agriculturallandscape. This paper therefore attempts to address this production. Similarly, the site of Gre Virike in the Turkishimbalance by examining the immediate landscape of tells middle Euphrates, although in appearance a conventionalin the northern Fertile Crescent, bringing together field tell, also probably functioned as some form of cultic placeevidence, ethnography and texts to distil some of the near Carchemish (Ökse 2007, 100).common factors in the social archaeology of the tell. This paper illustrates how land was probably configured One feature that has emerged from archaeological around typical small to medium sized tells in Uppersurveys in recent years is that settlement patterns in the Mesopotamia, and how the inferred land tenure providesNear East fluctuated through time between nucleated and clues concerning the social structure of the community thatdispersed modes (Wilkinson 1995). In a paper published occupied the tell. The essay also draws together threads fromin 2000, Edgar Peltenburg demonstrated that the tell, as a earlier arguments that point to supposedly ‘ancient’ forms ofnucleated community, was a widespread feature across the land holding, and attempts to bring these in alignment withNear East and eastern Mediterranean, and that alternations results derived from ethnographic studies and archaeologicalbetween nucleated tell-based communities and dispersed surveys of the landscape of the Fertile Crescent.settlement were important factors in understanding cycles Fundamental to this discussion is land tenure. Manyof settlement over long spans of time. scholars have used cuneiform texts to analyse land tenure Before embarking on this narrative, it is necessary to describe the shapes of fields, as well as to show how landto caution that tells were hardly likely to be socially or was allocated for private holdings, estates or communallyfunctionally uniform. As Postgate (1982, 310) has argued organised land. Less effort, however, has been spentfor Assyrian rural society, one should be careful about on analysing these topics within an overall landscapeimposing a “false homogeneity” on ancient communities. framework. Although such an ambitious treatment is beyond56 Tony Wilkinson

the scope of this paper, preliminary analysis suggests how

the archaeological landscape, land tenure and the socialarchaeology of the settlements themselves can be viewedwithin one overall framework. Land tenure is important tothis narrative because of the role it plays in linking togetherfield evidence, cuneiform texts and social archaeology, andalso because land-use practices have the capacity to mediatebetween social groups and the environment. Initially, this paper summarises the layout of a typicaltell-type settlement in the northern Fertile Crescent andoutlines the field evidence for the surrounding agriculturallandscape. This is followed by a discussion of somekey features of land tenure interpreted from cuneiformtexts. Finally, the ethnographic evidence from traditionalagricultural communities in the Levant is harnessed tooutline equivalent features or processes and to suggesthow these flesh out the interpretations of the landscapeof Bronze Age Mesopotamia. The perspective is from theoutside looking in: no attempt is made to tackle the abundantevidence of tell communities derived from excavations. Fig. 7.1 The archaeological landscape to the NE of Tell Beydar showing the inferred cultivation, the limits of that cultivation (inferred from the fade-out zone of hollow ways) and what wereField Evidence probably the common grazing lands in between (redrawn fromThe tell is one of the most familiar and conspicuous features original unpublished map by Jason Ur).of the Near Eastern landscape. In Upper Mesopotamia,many tells attained their maximum size and bulk in the3rd millennium BC (Early Bronze Age). Most are ofrelatively limited size, being usually 1–10 ha in area, similarly concludes that the population lived within nucleatedalthough some Upper Mesopotamian tells attain 50 ha in settlements and walked out to their fields (1994, 40). Thearea with surrounding walled quarters that take the overall significance of this will be discussed below.settlement up to some 120 or even 160 ha (Stein 2004, In those parts of Upper Mesopotamia where landscape67). Tells are usually topographically constrained, and features are well preserved, settlement territories can beeven when they do have lower or outer towns, only in inferred from the configuration of hollow ways that radiatedexceptional circumstances do small dispersed settlements from the central tell. Such features, which appear to haveoccur immediately beyond the limits of the tell. One such functioned both to gain access to the fields and as drovewaysunusual case is found at the site of Tell Brak where an along which the flocks and draft animals moved, often fadeextensive outer settlement as well as numerous small outliers out some 3–5 km from the central tell, thereby implyingof Late Chalcolithic 3–4 (3900–3400 cal BC) settlement the existence of an approximate boundary to the cultivatedoccur a short distance beyond the limits of the main tell land (Fig. 7.1; Wilkinson 1994; Ur 2003). Moreover, the(Ur et al. 2007). Intensive survey away from many tells has distinctive radial pattern of such hollow ways demonstratesdemonstrated that although extensive pottery scatters may that the main locus of movement was out from the settlementoccur, recognisable sites are scarce within what appear to towards the fields, outlying pastures, and in some cases tohave been the fields surrounding the tell. Again, exceptions the neighbouring settlements and centres. Unfortunately,can be cited, specifically the small early 3rd millennium such hollow ways are only preserved in the less transformedsite of Hajji Ibrahim, which appears to have been a small landscapes of the Khabur basin and neighbouring parts offortified granary in the vicinity of Tell Sweyhat along the north-western Iraq. On the other hand, in western SyriaSyrian Euphrates (Danti 1997, 89–92). and southern Turkey, intensive surveys demonstrate that That many archaeological mounds were genuinely the main area around the tell was apparently devoid ofnucleated settlements is hinted at by textual evidence from settlements (Philip et al. 2005; Casana 2007). Consequently,Babylonia indicating that houses tended to be located adjacent it is reasonable to infer that such areas within a walkingto houses and fields were adjacent to fields (Leemans 1982, distance of the tell (some 2–3 km) were probably also given248; but see Steinkeller 2006 for an alternative view of the over to fields.region of Umma). For the Amuq plain, Magness-Gardiner In favourable circumstances, intensive field survey has 7. The Tell: Social archaeology and territorial space 57

also demonstrated that some major tells were surrounded both Adams (1982, 11) and Diakonoff (1975, 131), mostby low-density scatters of potsherds that are inferred to texts relate to the state and temple sectors of the urbanhave resulted to a significant degree from the spreading of centres of power rather than to the rural communities thatmidden material and domestic refuse on the fields as fertilizer. formed the matrix of Upper Mesopotamian society. In termsSuch ‘field scatters’ are by no means universal, however, of land tenure Postgate has reminded us that: “…clearlyand many tells show little evidence for them. For example, most existing entitlement to land would be unwritten,sample transects laid out around sites in the Amuq plain though fixed by custom, and the need for documentary proof(Turkey) and in the Homs region (Syria) show negligible probably crept in with the gradual encroachment of urbanoff-site scatters of the Bronze Age, whereas those around Tell landlords” (1982, 311–312). In other words, the societiesHammam et-Turkmen in the Balikh and Kurban Höyük in that are often studied by archaeologists are not explicitlyTurkey show only very sparse scatters of Early Bronze Age discussed in many texts. A similar silence may be observedceramics (Casana and Wilkinson 2005; Philip et al. 2005; in documentation from Ottoman Syria indicating that whenWilkinson 1990; 1998). In these cases, if off-site scatters are land was re-distributed communally, peasants held nopresent in significant amounts, they consist of later pottery, written title to their shares (Admiralty 1944, 266). Whenmainly of Hellenistic, Roman, or Late Roman/Byzantine lands are discussed in the texts, as in the Nuzi texts, thedate. Nevertheless, where field scatters are of Early Bronze discussion may be couched in the form of unusual practices,Age date, they demonstrably focus upon the central tell from such as adoption, that are seemingly developed perhapswhich they were presumably spread (Wilkinson 1989). to avoid customary law (Zaccagnini 1999). Nevertheless, Finally, estimates of the populations that could be many archaeologists and ancient historians refer back,supported by the inferred field areas suggest that where often rather vaguely, to an ‘early’ phase of rural settlementhollow ways and textual records occur in the same area, in which the village communities were organised alongthe estimated population of the central tells could be communal lines. For Lamberg-Karlovsky (1999, 179–180)approximately supported by the inferred field catchments, this was during the ceramic Neolithic, that is the Hassunaas well as by the number of draft animals recorded on and Samarra periods, when there is archaeological evidencethe texts (Wilkinson et al. 2007; Ur and Wilkinson 2008). for communal storage facilities. Steinkeller (1999), mainlyHowever, the larger settlements, such as Tell Beydar and discussing southern Mesopotamia, maintains that this phaseBrak, were surrounded by relatively smaller cultivated areas continued until the Late Uruk period, whereas Diakonoffin proportion to their site area than the smaller tells, and these (1975, 132) sees such arrangements as continuing until atsmaller tells were capable of generating surplus agricultural least the Old Babylonian period, ending by the early 1stproduction. This suggests that the smaller tells produced a millennium BC when Neo-Assyrian administrative practicessurplus of cereals that went to the main centres to sustain resulted in a major transformation of land holding. Finally,the larger populations and public institutions, either as tax or Fales (1984, 8) argues that such a communal phase of villagesome equivalent measure of surplus. The Beydar texts suggest land holding continued until the last two centuries of thethat the settlements in the region of Beydar/Nabada were Neo-Assyrian empire.assessed in the form of the number of plough animals from Referring to this broad span of time, Adams states: “Henceeach site (Widell 2004, 721–723; Ur and Wilkinson 2008, it serves here merely to underline that communal forms of313–314) and that this may have related to the agricultural de facto tenure, as distinguished from whatever forms ofcapacity of each village, as discussed below. titular ownership of land may be formally recognised by In sum, the landscape evidence suggests that tells were law, are surely a very ancient, complex and widely occurringnucleated communities that were surrounded by a definable institution. They deserve to be taken fully into account inarea of cultivated fields accessed by radial pathways from any reconstruction of early Mesopotamian agriculture”the settlement with un-bounded lands (presumably pasture (1982, 10). The practice of communal ownership by theand scrub woodland) beyond. Such fields were sufficient to village community then begs the question as to who wassupply the inhabitants of the central communities with staple the ultimate owner of the land. Whereas Diakonoff (1975)foods, and the entire assemblage – tell, outlying fields, and and Jankowska (1969) consider the lands of villages in thepasture – went together as a single, and perhaps indivisible, region of Assur and Nuzi as forming the communal propertyunit of the landscape. of the “village commune”, Postgate regards the “ultimate owner” as the crown or the Assyrian palace (1982, 310). Fortunately, hints concerning the nature of village land holdings come from Bronze Age texts excavated fromHistorical Evidence Alalakh, Ebla and other sites in northern Syria and southernUnfortunately, cuneiform texts are not explicit in describing Turkey. Such texts refer to or hint that villages werehow the land associated with the smaller rural communities transferred between rulers together with their population,in rain-fed northern Mesopotamia was used. As stated by their surrounding lands and the revenues derived from58 Tony Wilkinson

Fig. 7.2 The village of Bar Elias in Lebanon, an example of a village that had been under musha’ cultivation in the 19th century AD(after Weulersse 1946, fig. 37).

them (Wiseman 1953, 47–48; Zaccagnini 1989; Magness- necessary to examine how such land holdings may haveGardiner 1994, 40; Schloen 2001, 306–307). This practice been operated in practice.was also attested around Early Bronze Age Ebla whereland grants included entire villages and their populations.Nevertheless, ultimate ownership appears to have been inthe hands of the king and his family within what may be Traditional Patterns of Land Holding and thetermed a patrimonial state (Steinkeller 1999, 300; Schloen Community2001). In other words, these ancient rural communities can In the early 1980s significant attention was paid to thebe regarded as forming one unit that could be exchanged possibility that communal forms of land-holding, similarat will, without it being necessary to negotiate over details to those of open field agriculture in Europe, were alsoof land ownership. characteristic of rural communities in the Near East (Adams Although a compelling case can be made for equating 1982, 8). Such systems, known as musha’, musha‘ orthe rural communities referred to in the Alalakh texts with mesha’a, were a common form of agriculture in the Levantthose composite landscape units of tell, tracks, fields and in the 19th century and were considered by some scholars tosurrounding pastures evident in the Khabur basin, it is have stretched back to ‘ancient times’ (Warriner 1948, 20; 7. The Tell: Social archaeology and territorial space 59

Granott 1952, 213; Seeden and Kaddour 1984). In musha’ ‘many hands make light work’; in other words, there areagriculture, the cultivated lands of the village (or most of tangible benefits to combining labour for certain tasks orthem) were held by the village community, that is by a group for sharing labour-saving devices such as plough teams. 3)of elders, the sheikh, the heads of the main households, clans Communality of enforcement, which includes defence andor even all the males of the village. The area of land was the requirement of having an overall strong figure, such asfrequently assessed in terms of the faddan, the amount of a sheikh, a chief or the lord of the manor, as head of theland that could be ploughed in one day by a pair of draft community.animals (usually oxen). In terms of the community of the tell, the inhabitants A particularly common mode of land distribution was may have been linked by common ancestry, as well asfor the individual parcels of land to be redistributed among being bound together by collaboration for the commonthe households by the casting of lots. According to Granott good. Defence would have been in the hands of either a(1952, 229), although initially lots were drawn every year, single figure, the head of the clan, or a group of elders, whothey may later have been apportioned every two years and were representative of the kinship or social groups of theas much as nine year intervals, with the result that in some village. Such communities would not only be defended bycases the interval was increased to permanent use. Without the community and its head, but would also be physicallydelving further into the rather extensive literature on musha’ bounded by its wall, which would not only provide defenceagriculture, it is necessary to emphasise that because the and a clear delimitation as to the limits of the community,land was held in common, it was not only very difficult to but would also serve to constrain the sediments of redundantalienate or sell individual parcels of land to outsiders, but buildings, thereby maintaining the distinctive morphologyequally the tax burden from the land could be shared among of the tell. In addition to such constraints, monumentalitythe shareholders so that the entire village and its territory would have been contributed by the house of the chief orcould be assessed as a single unit. local ruler, public buildings, and storage structures, the entire Fortunately, maps of musha’ field systems, or post-musha’ site being rendered immobile perhaps by the sanctity of cultlandscapes that have been ‘frozen in time’ (Weulersse 1946) buildings and/or water sources.have been published, so that it is possible to view their basic At a general level, the agricultural landscape of aelements. For example, the village of Bar Elias in Lebanon musha’ community approximates to that of a nucleatedshows a tightly clustered nucleated village (with its tell) village in western Europe, as well as to reconstructions ofsurrounded by a highly fragmented landscape of small the agricultural landscape surrounding the Bronze Age tellfield parcels, which were exclusively devoted to cultivation (compare Roberts 1996, fig. 2.5, with reconstructions inand were bereft of habitations or other structures (Fig. 7.2; Wilkinson 1994 and 2003). Although one must be wary ofWeulersse 1946, fig. 37). This lack of outlying settlement is uncritically extrapolating ethnographic practices back intocongruent with the land tenure. This is because in musha’ the past, many studies of musha’ systems provide valuablesystems individual parcels of land are rotated regularly, with hints as to how society may have functioned within a systemthe result that no individual ‘owns’ the land or can therefore of collective land management. First of all, it is evident thatsettle on it. In addition to the dense matrix of fields, one or musha’ as a collective way of land distribution is not simplytwo radial features led away from the village of Bar Elias, an economic system. Thus Fischbach (2000, 201) maintainsand at the time of mapping were infilled with small field that, “Especially in musha’ villages, property ownershipparcels (Fig. 7.2). Before they became infilled, these features was integrally linked with social relations. Persons ownedappear to have originally been broad radial tracks similar abstract shares in the total village land, shares that hadto the hollow ways or drove-ways that radiate from Upper been originally determined as part of a collective villageMesopotamian tells. decision. The terms of reference for landed property were Although the regular reallocation of land, as well as ease thus socially constructed.” In traditional collective villagesof access to fields, provides a compelling reason for the in Egypt, not only did everyone know everyone else, butclustering of settlements, it would be overly simplistic to also there was a tendency for members of the community toascribe settlement nucleation to just one factor, namely land create solidarity by working for a common interest (Gerbertenure. Rather, geographers frequently posit a number of 1987, 144, citing the work of Ayrout).inter-related factors as contributing to settlement nucleation. Not only did musha’ often function within a patriarchalAccording to B. K. Roberts (1996, 35–37) there are three social system, but it has also been seen as a way of preservingsocial conditions of nucleation: 1) Communality of assent, the integrity of the village community (Granott 1952, 215).namely those social aspects of life that stem from ties The musha’ village was specifically structured so that itof kinship, whether assumed or created; often these are was a self-contained unit; it was difficult for non-villagersrepresented by the patrimonial household as recognised to acquire village land or to penetrate it socially (Schaeblerby Weber (1978) and more recently Schloen (2001). 2) 2000, 289). Marriage to someone within the village was alsoCommunality to economise, perhaps over-simplified as preferable to someone from without (Gerber 1987, 144), and60 Tony Wilkinson

families combined into larger groups termed hamula (clan). share-holders were unlikely to either intensify agriculturalThis was conceived as a form of mutual protection, within production or invest in the land. Hence manuring, as wellwhich there was a desire to keep the family property intact as the construction of field enclosure walls or buildings,(Granott 1952, 216). Such communities epitomised Roberts’ was discouraged (Granott 1952, 218, 246; Fischbach 2000,concepts of communality because “They lived together, 85). Because such features provide a physical signature,they worked together, and when the need arose they were they are significant archaeologically, and are potentiallycomrades in self defence”….“The chief force which held recognisable in the landscape. In other words, when wethe community together and the shield of its integrity was start to see archaeological signatures of enclosure walls,the common ownership of the soil….” (Granott 1952, 216). buildings and manuring, it is likely that the landscape hadMoreover, “Its essence was that social groups of different switched from some form of communal administration tosizes held their land as an indivisible possession” (Granott private or institutional land holdings that allowed investment1952: 215). to take place. Such systems hint that Bronze Age rural settlements As observed above, the area immediately surroundingcould also be interpreted as indivisible possessions that many tells in upper Mesopotamia and the northern Levantcould therefore be exchanged together with their population is relatively bereft of archaeological sites or features. Fieldand immediate territories. The above can be used to provide boundaries are not in evidence, nor are settlements ora linking argument, namely that communally organised land- individual buildings very common. However, the latter dotenure systems represent social systems that were nucleated occur, and when they are recognised, as in the area of Telland indivisibly bound to their surrounding territory. Sweyhat, their presence may well be significant in terms of the pattern of land holding. As observed above, field scatters, which frequently result from ancient fertilisation and are indicators of investment in the land, are present aroundConclusions certain sites but are not present around all Bronze Age tells.The above narrative has discussed the role of the tell as a The absence or presence of field scatters might thereforenucleated community in which collective action probably result from the practice of collective re-distribution of landplayed a significant role in the agricultural systems around (no field scatters) or a switch to institutional or private landthe tell. This echoes conclusions drawn by Peltenburg in his holding (field scatters). Unfortunately, because field scattersconsideration of the mobilisation of labour in the erection will only register when settlement refuse or midden materialof fortified structures along the Euphrates. These can be is scattered upon fields, such an elementary equation isinterpreted not just as service facilities: “Their construction, not entirely valid. Midden material would only have beeninvolving pooled labour in a joint enterprise that also was used as fertilizer when the community was without animala unifying end in itself, exhibits settlement nucleation dung as a result of the dung being burned as fuel becauseas a means to integration and creation of new identities” all the scrub or woodland in the region had been removed.(Peltenburg 2007, 14). Consequently, there are both palaeoecological and socio- In some studies there has been a tendency for the economic reasons behind the appearance of field scatters.communal village system to be perceived as a form of overly Nevertheless, a compelling case can be made forromanticised ethnographic analogy. For example, Weulersse viewing the smaller tells, specifically those that are withoutdescribed these musha’ type systems as “extremely robust, field scatters, as being representative of communities thathealthy and balanced (social) and economic organizations” practiced a form of communal agriculture. This would(Seeden and Kaddour 1984, 504). On the other hand, such accord with the observation made by Adams (1982, 8) that insystems were prone to disputes over the allocation of the Ottoman period musha’ villages occurred in transitionalshares, which led to local conflicts. In addition, depending areas between fully sedentary intensively cultivated areasupon the way the musha’ was administered, practices of around the larger towns and regions further to the east thatdivided inheritance could result in the land parcels becoming were given over to pastoral nomads. Thus Tell al-Hawa andprogressively reduced in size. However, this criticism could Hamoukar in north-western Iraq and north-eastern Syriabe levelled at private land holdings as well. respectively, where 3rd millennium field scatters are dense Musha’ communities have also been regarded as unecon- and extensive (Wilkinson 1994; Ur 2002), could be viewedomical in their use of land because they tended to practice as the larger towns around which agriculture was intensivethe system of biennial fallow, which although beneficial as a (and under the administration of institutions, estates or evensystem for conserving soil moisture, left half the land fallow given over to private land holdings). Conversely, smallerevery year. Moreover, collective re-distribution of the land tells, such as Tell Judeidah, Kurban Höyük and others inmeant that there was no incentive to improve the soil because the Homs and Tell Beydar areas around which field scattersothers would “reap the fruits of his initiative” (Granott are rare or absent, might represent a form of collective, low-1952, 218). In other words, under collective ownership, the intensity agriculture equivalent to the musha’ system. 7. The Tell: Social archaeology and territorial space 61

Such communities may not have lived in an agricultural in Mesopotamian rural communities. In J. N. Postgate, I.paradise, however, because it is likely that they were subject Dandamayev, H. Gershevitch, G. Klengel, G. Komoróczy andto taxation. As indicated in the Beydar texts, the presence of M. T. Larsen (eds) Societies and Languages of the Ancient Nearlists of draft animals suggests that some form of census was East. Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, 1–14. Warminster, Aris & Phillips.required. In the case of the Beydar area, the neighbouring Admiralty. 1944. Syria. British Admiralty Geographical Handbooksmaller tells were apparently producing a surplus cereal Series, BR 513. British Naval Intelligence Division.production, which may have been a ‘tax’ that went to the Casana, J. J. 2007. Structural transformations in settlement systemsmain town or city, in this case Beydar and Brak, Nabada and of the northern Levant. American Journal of Archaeology 112,Nagar respectively (Wilkinson et al. 2007; Ur and Wilkinson 195–222.2008). Whether indicative of taxation or not, the assessment Casana, J. and T. J. Wilkinson 2005. Settlement and landscapes inof 19th and early 20th century land holdings as faddans the Amuq Region. In K. Aslihan Yener (ed.) The Archaeology of(i.e. the amount of land that can be ploughed by a pair of the Amuq Plain, 25–65, 203–280. Oriental Institute Publicationsoxen in one day) is indicative of the strength or wealth of 131. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.the community. As Schaebler has stated, “The faddan was Danti, M. 1997. Regional surveys and excavations. In R. L. Zettlertherefore not a metric measurement or, strictly speaking, (ed.) Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989–1995 Preliminary Report, 85–94.even a standard indication of surface area; it was rather Philadelphia, Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeologya social unit of measurement testifying to the productive (MASCA), University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeologystrength or wealth of village or individual” (2000, 258); and Anthropology.and “Land in musha‘ communities is clearly more than a Diakonoff, I. M. 1975. The rural community in the ancient Nearmeans of production. It is rather the very expression of the East. Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orientcommunity. A village is expressed in a given number of 18(2), 121–133.faddans” (2000, 288). In other words, the counts of plough Fales, M. 1984. A survey of Neo-Assyrian land sales. In T. Khalidianimals in the Beydar texts, rather than relating to the direct (ed.) Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middleadministration of these subordinate places, might equally East, 1–13. Beirut, American University of Beirut Press.be an assessment of the productive strength of the outlying Fischbach, M. R. 2000. State, Society and Land in Jordan. Leiden,villages, or for taxation. Brill. Gerber, H. 1987. The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East. In sum, evidence from landscape surveys, historical texts Boulder (CO), Lynne Rienner.and ethnography converge on the conclusion that the tells Granott, A. 1952. The Land System of Palestine in History andand the fields that surrounded them formed an indivisible Structure. London, Eyre and Spottiswood.social and landscape unit. Moreover, the tell not only Jankowska, N. B. 1969. Communal self-government and the kingrepresented a nucleated community, but one that was a of the state of Arrapha. Journal of the Economic and Socialstrong, probably patrimonial social group, which exercised History of the Orient 12, 233–82.some form of collective redistribution of land. The land Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1999. Households, land tenurewas not simply an economic resource, but it was viewed and communication systems in the 6th–4th millennia ofas a collective good and was part of the social processes of Greater Mesopotamia. In M. Hudson and B. A. Levine (eds)everyday life for a community that clustered together for Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East,its own perceived common advantage. 167–201. Peabody Museum Bulletin 7. Cambridge (MA), Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Leemans, W. F. 1982. The pattern of settlement in the BabylonianAcknowledgements countryside. In J. N. Postgate, I. Dandamayev, H. Gershevitch, H. Klengel, G. Komoróczy and M. T. Larsen (eds) SocietiesThis paper is dedicated to Eddie Peltenburg, whose research and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour ofhas contributed significantly to my own thoughts on the I. M. Diakonoff, 246–249. Warminster, Aris and Phillips.development of the social archaeology of the ancient Magness-Gardiner, B. 1994. Urban-rural relations in Bronze AgeNear East. This paper also draws on research from the Syria: Evidence from Alalah Level VII palace archives. In G.Modeling Ancient Settlement Systems (MASS) project, M. Schwartz and S. E. Falconer (eds) Archaeological Viewsand I specifically wish to thank McGuire Gibson, David from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early ComplexSchloen, Tate Paulette, Jesse Casana and Jason Ur for various Societies, 37–47. Washington DC, Smithsonian Institutiondiscussions relating to this topic over the past ten years. Press. Ökse, A. Tuba 2007. A ‘high’ terrace at Gre Virike to the north of Carchemish: A power of local rulers as founders? In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement: TheReferences Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 94–104. LevantAdams, R. McC. 1982. Property rights and functional tenure Supplementary Series 5. Oxford, Oxbow.62 Tony Wilkinson

Peltenburg, E. 2000. From nucleation to dispersal: Late third The Tell Hamoukar survey 2000–2001. Akkadica 123, 57– millennium BC settlement pattern transformations in the Near 88. East and Aegean. In O. Rouault and M. Wäfler (eds) La Djéziré Ur, J. A. 2003. CORONA satellite photography and ancient road et l’Euphrate syriens: de la protohistoire à la fin du IIe millén- networks: A northern Mesopotamian case study. Antiquity 77, aire av. J.-C.: tendances dans l’interprétation historique des 102–115. données nouvelles, 183–206. Subartu 7. Turnhout, Brepols. Ur, J. A., P. Karsgaard and J. Oates 2007. Early urban developmentPeltenburg, E. 2007. New perspectives on the Carchemish sector of in the Near East. Science 317, 1188. the Middle Euphrates River Valley in the 3rd millennium BC. Ur, J. A. and T. J. Wilkinson 2008. Settlement and economic In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement: The landscapes of Tell Beydar and its hinterland. Subartu 21, Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 3–24. Levant 305–27. Tell Beydar Studies 1. Turnhout, Brepols. Supplementary Series 5. Oxford, Oxbow. Warriner, D. 1948. Land and Poverty in the Middle East. LondonPhilip, G., M. Abdulkarim, P. Newson, A. Beck, D. Bridgland, and New York, Royal Institute of International Affairs. M. Bshesh, A. Shaw, R. Westaway and K. Wilkinson 2005. Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Settlement and landscape development in the Homs region, Sociology (eds G. Roth and C. Wittich). Translated from the Syria: Report on work undertaken during 2001–2003. Levant German by E. Fischoff et al. Berkeley and London, University 17, 21–42. of California Press.Postgate, J. N. 1982. Ilku and land tenure in the Middle Assyrian Weulersse, J. 1946. Paysans de Syrie et du Proche Orient. Paris, kingdom – a second attempt. In J. N. Postgate, I. Dandamayev, Gallimard. H. Gershevitch, H. Klengel, G. Komoróczy, and M. T. Larsen Widell, M. 2004. Some observations on the administration, (eds) Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. agriculture and land management of Tell Beydar. Ugarit- Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff, 304–313. Warminster, Forschungen 35, 717–733. Aris & Phillips. Wilkinson, T. J. 1989. Extensive sherd scatters and land useRoberts, B. K. 1996. Landscapes of Settlement: Prehistory to the intensity: Some recent results. Journal of Field Archaeology Present. London, Routledge. 16(1), 31–46.Sallaberger, W. and J. Ur. 2004. Tell Beydar/Nabada in its Wilkinson, T. J. 1990. Town and Country in Southeastern regional setting. In L. Milano, W. Sallaberger, P. Talon and Anatolia Vol.1: Settlement and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and K. Vanlerberghe (eds) Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts Other Sites in the Lower Karababa Basin. Oriental Institute from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002), 51–71. Subartu 12. Publications 109. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University Turnhout, Brepols. of Chicago.Schaebler, B. 2000. Practicing musha‘: Common lands and the Wilkinson, T. J. 1994. The structure and dynamics of dry farming common good in southern Syria under the Ottomans and the states in upper Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 35(1), French. In R. Owen (ed.) New Perspectives on Property and 483–520. Land in the Middle East, 241–309. Cambridge (MA), Harvard Wilkinson, T. J. 1995. Late Assyrian settlement geography in University Press. upper Mesopotamia. In Mario Liverani (ed.) Neo-AssyrianSchloen, J. D. 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Geography, 139–159. Quaderni di geografia storica 5. Rome, Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Cambridge (MA), Harvard Semitic Museum Studies in the Wilkinson, T. J. 1998. Water and human settlement in the Balikh Archaeology and History of the Levant. Valley, Syria: Investigations from 1992–1995. Journal of FieldSeeden, H. and M. Kaddour 1984. Space, structures and land in Archaeology 25, 63–87. Shams ed D n Tann ra on the Euphrates: An ethnoarchaeol- Wilkinson, T. J. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near ogical perspective. In T. Khalidi (ed.) Land Tenure and Social East. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Transformation in the Middle East, 495–526. Beirut, American Wilkinson, T. J., J. H. Christiansen, J. Ur, M. Widell and M. University of Beirut Press. Altaweel 2007. Urbanization within a dynamic environment:Stein, G. 2004. Structural parameters and sociocultural factors in Modeling Bronze Age communities in upper Mesopotamia. the economic organization of north Mesopotamian urbanism in American Anthropologist 109(1), 52–68. the third millennium BC. In G. M. Feinman and L. M. Nichols Wiseman, D. J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. Occasional Publications (eds) Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2. London, 61–78. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.Steinkeller, P. 1999. Land-tenure conditions in third-millennium Zaccagnini, C. 1989. Asiatic mode of production and ancient Babylonia: The problem of regional variation. In M. Hudson Near East: Notes toward a discussion. In C. Zaccagnini (ed.) and B. A. Levine (eds) Urbanization and Land Ownership in Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East, 1–126. the Ancient Near East, 289–329. Peabody Museum Bulletin Budapest, University of Budapest. 7. Cambridge (MA), Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Zaccagnini, C. 1999. Economic aspects of land ownership and Ethnology, Harvard University. land use in Northern Mesopotamia and Syria from the lateSteinkeller, P. 2006. City and countryside in third millennium BC third millennium to the Neo-Assyrian period. In M. Hudson Babylonia. In E. Stone (ed.) Settlement and Society: Essays and B. A. Levine (eds) Urbanization and Land Ownership in Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, 185–211. Los Angeles, the Ancient Near East, 331–352. Peabody Museum Bulletin University of California, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 7. Cambridge (MA), Peabody Museum of Archaeology andUr, J. A. 2002. Settlement and landscape in northern Mesopotamia: Ethnology, Harvard University. 8

RETHINKING KALOPSIDHA: FROM SPECIALISATION

TO STATE MARGINALISATION

Lindy Crewe

Introduction explained as either a destruction of the site by people who

This paper is offered to Eddie Peltenburg in thanks for all then settled at Enkomi or a relocation by the inhabitants tohis generous support and valued advice over the years as Enkomi (Åström 1966, 140). Through the later twentiethdoctoral supervisor and beyond. The title is a reference to century and beyond, excavations in the Levant and EgyptEddie’s paper, “From isolation to state formation in Cyprus, (recently summarised in Maguire 2009) have continued toc. 3500–1500 BC” (1996), which was my entry point into produce evidence that the majority of the earliest potterythe complexities of Late Cypriot social complexity. This exports found outside of Cyprus during the mainlandpaper examined the earliest manifestations of ‘statehood’ Middle Bronze horizon originated in the east and can beon Cyprus at the Middle–Late Cypriot transition, centred tied particularly to styles found at Kalopsidha and apparentlyon the evidence from Enkomi and the construction of a produced there (Åström 1966, 8).series of apparently contemporary ‘fortifications’ located Due to the limited resolution and scope of the data,at key points around the island. These structures, and the discussed below, examination of the Kalopsidha evidencemajority of other sites yielding evidence for the beginning of leaves us with more questions than answers. Indeed, whythe Late Cypriot period, remain enigmatic and inaccessible Kalopsidha? If copper is considered to be central to Cypriotto archaeologists. social transformations (Muhly 1986; Knapp 1988 and Since the 1920s when a house of Bronze Age date was Peltenburg 1996 amongst others) why does a site locatedexcavated and published by Einar Gjerstad at Kalopsidha well inland and far from the copper sources play such(1926), the site has played a pivotal role in reconstructing a leading role? Did it in fact play the primary role thatBronze Age Cypriot society. Whether this is truly due to pottery styles found abroad would seem to indicate? Mythe site’s exceptional nature or through a mere accident of aim here is not to speculate on how Kalopsidha gained theexcavation is a question that is unlikely to be resolved in the special position it apparently occupied by the end of thenear future, but by asking different questions of the data and Middle Cypriot (henceforth MC) period but to considerre-examining the material more recent research continues how the waning fortunes of the site can inform on theto allow new interpretations (e.g. Frankel 1974; Barlow wider picture of social transformation on Cyprus. I would1985; Pilides 1996; Webb 1999; Maguire 2009). Further like to reconsider the material culture evidence, particularlyexcavations at Kalopsidha in 1959 by Paul Åström (1966) the styles, technologies and types of pottery that featureincreased the site’s status as a leading early participant in strongly at the site. One of the most intriguing features ofrelations with the surrounding eastern Mediterranean region the Kalopsidha assemblage is the apparent contradictionand provided additional evidence for the abandonment between the precocious adoption of a swathe of both foreignof at least part of the settlement contemporary with the and locally inspired innovations in tandem with a lastingfoundation of a coastal trading emporium at nearby Enkomi technological and stylistic conservatism in production ofduring the Middle–Late Cypriot transition (MC III–LC IA, the distinctive White Painted pottery for which the site isc. 1750–1550 cal BC). Kalopsidha’s decline from “the old renowned.capital of the east Mesaoria” (Catling 1973, 168) has been64 Lindy Crewe

Fig. 8.1 Map of Cyprus showing sites mentioned in the text.

The Evidence from Archaeological Investigations

at Kalopsidha A DJO I NI NGArchaeological evidence from the area of Kalopsidha is B UI LDI NGdispersed discontinuously over a 150 ha area, located in the Unexcavat edfertile alluvial Mesaoria Plain in southeast Cyprus, 13 km 1

from the coast and 11 km southwest of Enkomi (Fig. 8.1). 2

Tombs located in four discrete cemeteries (Sites A, B, D

3and E) and the remains of a settlement (Site C) dating from 4EC I–MC III were first investigated by J. L. Myres in 1894 11(Myres 1897) (Fig. 8.2). A house occupied from MC III–LC 5I (and overlying an earlier EC III–MC II structure) at Site 6C and a trial trench at the locality Koufos (Trenches 8–9 onFig. 8.2) were excavated by Gjerstad in 1924 (Gjerstad 1926, 1027–37). Further excavations (Trenches 1–9) were carried 7 9out in 1959 by Paul Åström, and the subsequent publicationsummarises both his and earlier excavations (1966). Despite TÅström’s attempts to deal fully with the material from 8 E Eearlier excavations, the majority of the Kalopsidha tombs R T Swere poorly excavated and incompletely described (Myres A.1897), and the material is now lost. Keswani (2005, 380,392) suggests that the reported horse bones along with a fewimported items and copper objects in MC tombs indicatethat the inhabitants of the area were engaged in the same 0 5m Wall Cintensification of mortuary-centred prestige displays as therest of the island towards the end of the MC. 2 In comparison with the majority of Cypriot Bronze Agesettlements, Kalopsidha shows a long period of occupation Wall B(primarily EC I–LC IIA). It is not possible to ascertain the 1extent of prehistoric settlement at Kalopsidha during any Wall Aperiod of occupation, and areas with identified settlementevidence are dispersed over 14 ha. Åström suggests that N B.the Late Cypriot (henceforth LC) settlement (exposed inexcavation only in Trench 9) may have only been an areaof 40–50 m in diameter (Åström 1966, 48). Gjerstad’s Fig. 8.3 MC III–LC IA structures at Kalopsidha. A: Plan of Gjerstad’shouse apparently adjoined another to the east and a road ran house (after Gjerstad 1926, 28, fig. 3). B: Trench 3 (after Åströmalong the southern face (Gjerstad 1926, 27; see Fig. 8.3, a), 1966, fig. 21).although it has been questioned whether Gjerstad’s house wasin fact a single architectural unit (Frankel and Webb 1996,54). Åström positioned Trenches 1–9 in an effort to locatestratified deposits to define the relative chronology of the and preserved to a height of 45 cm. Åström (1966, 41)LC, but Trenches 1, 2, and 4–8 contained no in situ material speculated that it may have been a fortification wall, but(Åström 1966, 37–38). Trench 3, Trench 9 and Gjerstad’s more recent research has suggested that it is more likelyhouse provide the only glimpses into the nature of the these structures represent a social strategy of emulation ofsettlement and will be discussed in further detail below. Levantine elite behaviour rather than possessing a purely militaristic function (Philip 1991; Crewe 2007b; Horowitz 2007; Peltenburg 2008).Trench 3 Parallels for roughly contemporary walls of this monu-The small but tantalising exposure of Trench 3 (8 m N–S x mental (in Cypriot terms) building style are attested across1 m E–W) still remains the most useful for the purposes of the island at Enkomi in the Area III, Level A pre-fortressunderstanding Kalopsidha’s settlement organisation during wall remnant and the Level IA fortress building (Dikaiosthe MC III–LC IA transition. Three walls were partially 1969–1971, 15–16); in the external walls of the fortresses atexposed (Fig. 8.3, b) and only a single construction and Korovia-Nitovikla (Sjöqvist 1940, 64–73); at Dhali-Kafkalliaoccupation phase was attested. The most substantial, (Swiny 1972, 28) and Ayios Sozomenos (Gjerstad 1926,and presumably exterior, wall (Wall A), is 1.2 m wide 37–47); and in the mound of Phlamoudhi-Vounari (Horowitz66 Lindy Crewe

2007, 140–41, table 6.6). An example from the southwest 1971, 66–67; Manning et al. 2002). This is considered likelyof the island may also now be attested at Kissonerga-Skalia here based on the presence of local wheelmade wares. There(Crewe et al. 2008) as pottery evidence from the latest were smaller numbers of LC IIB–LC III sherds, and post-occupation surface associated with the 1.2 m wide rubble Bronze Age material was found throughout most levels,wall (Wall 68) in Trench G also dates to MC III–LC IA. indicating much of the area was disturbed (Åström 1966, Construction techniques for these structures are variable; 48). In addition to ceramics, small numbers of copper andsome exhibit a casemate technique and others use a fairly bronze fragments and artefacts, slag and a possible cruciblehaphazard rubble construction set in variable amounts of suggest that metalworking was carried out in the vicinitymud mortar. All were apparently constructed within MC (Watkins 1966, 113–115).III–LC IA. Walls B and C of Trench 3 were around 40 Åström interpreted Trench 9 as a dump associated with ancm wide and ran more or less perpendicular to Wall A, unlocated settlement, but Webb (1999, 113–116) has recentlysuggesting they were internal walls. The structure was reinterpreted it as a likely sanctuary deposit due to parallelsabandoned suddenly, and Åström (1966, 47) concluded that with the site of Athienou-Bamboulari tis KoukounninasRoom 2 was destroyed by fire. The remains, including three (Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983). Similarities include the largepithoi in Room 2 and two in Room 1, indicate that it may numbers of low-fired miniature vessels, which may havehave been a storage area. served as votives, large amounts of immature goat/sheep bones, evidence of metal working at the site (including some scrap interpreted as votive in nature) and location onGjerstad’s House (Site C) a possible overland route between copper mines and coastalThe house excavated by Gjerstad measures approximately centres. Further evidence of the likelihood of the deposit12 m × 15 m and consists of eleven rooms, including Room relating to a non-domestic function may be seen in the large5, which Gjerstad interpreted as an open inner courtyard numbers of painted wares (60% in the lower levels and(Fig. 8.3, a). Gjerstad excavated seven strata but 3–7 26.6% overall were of White Painted varieties) comparedunderlay the house and belonged to an earlier structure. to proportions found associated with domestic architectureGjerstad and Åström dated strata 1–2 to MC III. The entire at Kalopsidha (10.7% in Trench 3) and also within thehouse was excavated only down to Stratum 2, and only Enkomi Areas I and III buildings (up to 10%, Crewe 2007a,one room was excavated to Stratum 7 (Barlow 1985, 49). 133–143). Although use of Trench 9 lingered on into LC IIA,Evidence of conflagration in Room 7 was interpreted as a the majority of the pottery is of LC I date, and it is likelydestruction of the house in Stratum 2 (Åström 1966, 139). that after LC IB activity was much reduced.Stratum 1 represents the construction of a new floor level and In sum, the latest occupation in the excavated buildingsbrief reoccupation of the house before final abandonment. and the earliest deposition in Trench 9 are at least partially There are many problems with the stratigraphy, class- contemporary with the first occupation of Dikaios’ Area Iification and subsequent storage of the material (for building at Enkomi in LC IA1. Evidence for how Kalopsidhadiscussion of these problems, see Barlow 1985 and Crewe functioned prior to MC III is elusive, except for the presence2007a, 51). A number of wares of both Cypriot and non- of another (largely unexcavated) structure underlyingCypriot origin were classed as ‘foreign’ (Gjerstad 1926, 269). Gjerstad’s house. In the remainder of this paper, I would likeIt is unclear as to which strata belong the “great quantities to explore the material indicators of Kalopsidha’s occupationof Syrian ware, large pithoi with pointed base and vertical and how they may tie in with the wider social processesshoulder-handles, also jugs and flasks” cited by Gjerstad occurring on the island.(1926: 36). Åström (1972a, 170–71) summarised the warespresent but noted that much of the material from Strata 1–2was unfortunately mixed together at a later date. Åström(2001) has since noted White Painted VI, Monochrome and Pottery and Kalopsidha’s International RelationsBichrome Wheelmade ware in these strata, signalling that Kalopsidha has been identified as a pottery production centreoccupation continued into LC I. (Åström 1966, 8) based upon the presence of misfired sherds at both Site C and in Trench 9 and a preponderance of unique types of certain wares, particularly some of the WhiteTrench 9 Painted varieties (Fig. 8.4), Red Slip, Black Slip and PlainNo intact architecture was encountered in Trench 9 (5 m White wares. Although, as noted above, the site is renownedN–S × 1 m E–W), but an incredibly large number of sherds for its reputation as the source of the earliest exportedwere excavated (223,000 of which 95,936 were classified), White Painted wares, the most common pottery style atpredominantly dating from MC III–LC IIA. The bottommost Kalopsidha is Plain White Handmade ware, accounting forlayers appeared to be undisturbed and were dated to MC III, 37% of the Trench 3 assemblage (Åström 1966, 40–44).but an early LC I date has since been suggested (Merrillees The significance of this may again be highlighted through 8. Rethinking Kalopsidha: From specialisation to state marginalisation 67

comparison with the contemporary occupation level in LC (Crewe 2007b). In addition to the novelty seen in the surfaceIA Area I at Enkomi where Plain White (including both treatment of Plain White ware, new vessel types also occur.handmade and wheelmade forms) forms only 8% of the I will briefly note the significance of one of these: the Plainassemblage (Crewe 2007a, 139, table 17.14). Gjerstad did White Handmade pithoi.not isolate the ware during his excavation, and it seems to Cypriot communities began producing large storagehave been lumped in with the foreign wares. Amounts are vessels as early as EC III–MC I, but they became morealso lower as material from the earlier structure is present in common across the island during MC II (Pilides 1996, 107).the deposits. LC IA–IIA Trench 9 has comparable numbers The earlier examples were manufactured in Red Polishedto later levels at Enkomi at around 31% (Åström 1966, 49). ware, usually with a large round mouth, short neck with twoAgain, this figure includes all manufacturing technologies handles from the neck to shoulder, piriform body and smallat Enkomi but reflects only the handmade variety at flat base, ranging from 0.75–1 m in height (Pilides 2000,Kalopsidha. I will return to this point below. 4, fig. 1). Probably in MC III (Åström 1966, 205–206) a Kalopsidha also has the majority of the earliest examples new, slightly smaller type appeared, ranging from 33–56of Plain White on the island (Crewe 2009). It is perhaps not cm in height (Pilides 2000, 3), which was manufactured indifficult to see how Plain White ware may have developed a fine, hard variant of Plain White ware often with reliefat Kalopsidha as it is essentially White Painted ware without or incised bands at the neck or shoulder (Fig. 8.5, a) andany painted decoration. The ware also owes stylistically and usually without handles.typologically to Middle Bronze plain wares from the Levant The Levantine affinities of the Plain White pithoi with68 Lindy Crewe

relief bands were noted by Åström (1972a, 230–231), and types found outside of Cyprus and in small numbers in thethese vessels have since been identified as exports to Tell earliest Enkomi deposits (12% in the earliest occupation butel-Dabca (Maguire 2009, 157–161) and Ugarit (noted in decreasing to 2% by LC IB; Crewe 2007a, 113).Pilides 2000, 51). I have also recently examined sherdsfrom Tell el-‘Ajjul and located further examples, alongwith a number of similar local Levantine variants. Thisphenomenon of stylistic and technological borrowings along Discussionwith true imports and exports occurred across the eastern In both the MC III–LC IA structures in Trench 3 andMediterranean during the Middle Bronze Age. Related to Gjerstad’s house the pottery is characterised by a substantialthis is the circulation of juglets, discussed further below. proportion of innovatory forms and styles. This includesThe manufacture of this new style of vessel on Cyprus can the earlier strata beneath Gjerstad’s house with significantbe seen as an adaptation of a Levantine form but drawing quantities of White Painted ware, as White Painted itselfon pre-existing Cypriot requirements for increased storage was an innovation at the beginning of the MC. On the othercapacity. Syrian inspiration has also been seen in some hand, the LC IA–IIA assemblage of Trench 9 is characterisedof the White Painted V vessels imitating Syrian form and by technological and stylistic archaisms. By attempting towith painted eyes (Fig. 8.4, d; Åström 1972a, 223), and understand these conflicts between tradition and innovation,Kalopsidha also has the earliest locally manufactured and perhaps between different sectors of the one community,Levantine-style saucer lamps with pinched rims (Åström it is possible that we can understand the processes of change1966, 111, fig. 107). An example of the experimental and on Cyprus.hybridised nature of Cypriot pottery at this time can be seen Peltenburg views the first monumental ‘fort’ buildingsin a handle from a pithos of earlier Red Polished type but as “instrumental in securing for islanders a more activemanufactured in Plain White ware (Fig. 8.5, b). and independent role in the realisation of potential of local In association with these locally produced Plain White resources” (2008, 153). The destruction and abandonmentpithoi must briefly be mentioned the significant quantities of the Trench 3 building and Gjerstad’s house provide a(a minimum of 26 vessels) of imported Canaanite jars found glimpse into the probable conflict taking place betweenin both Trench 3 and Gjerstad’s house, and including the traditional ways and those who seemingly embraced astratum underlying the structure. Despite reservations noted new world of foreign symbols and ideas at the MC–LCabove on the attributions of this material to particular strata, transition. The Trench 3 building was constructed on asherds from a minimum of five different vessels are stored in grand scale, and both buildings contained imported anda box marked “Room 9, Str. 3” and are thus attributable to locally-produced stored surplus, which may well haveMC II–III, predating Gjerstad’s house. Amongst other boxes contained the ingredients for the manufacture of the materialfrom “Stratum 1 or 2” or only labelled “MC III” are sherds to be transported in the White Painted vessels. Whether thefrom at least a further 20 vessels. At least one vessel and building programme and the housing of the goods reflectprobably more occur in the Trench 3 building. Kalopsidha the actions of an individual, group within the community ortherefore had exceptional storage capacity for the later MC outsiders is unknown. If sectors of the community (ratherand into early LC IA, both incorporating local and imported than outsiders) were responsible for the destructions, thenvessels, and on current evidence the site exhibits privileged the subsequent adherence to traditional pottery manufactureaccess to imported goods and trade relations. In contrast, and decorative techniques by those who continued to live atonly one definite Canaanite jar fragment is mentioned from Kalopsidha may reflect a (temporary) return to traditionalLC IA–IIA Trench 9 (Åström 1966, 76) although other and tested methods.unidentified sherds may have been present. Maguire notes that of the significant quantity of Cypriot Turning to the Trench 9 deposits, although the earliest pottery vessels imported to Tell el-Dabca prior to the Newdeposition of material may be contemporary with occupation Kingdom, the majority are White Painted handmade waresin the excavated structures, the area continued to be used of styles most commonly found at Kalopsidha althoughfor around another 200 years after their abandonment. The she adds the caveat that Kalopsidha is the only site tolow numbers of wheelmade wares in Gjerstad’s house have been excavated in the region (2009, 26). Maguireand Trench 3 are indicative of this very early LC IA date has also examined the phenomenon of the circulation ofbefore wheelmade wares were commonly produced (Crewe a range of small jugs and juglets as precious commodity2007b), but in comparison with other parts of the island the containers (probably for perfume or oil), which werecontinuing strong handmade tradition seen in the Trench 9 produced in Cyprus, Egypt and the Levant (1995; 2009,deposits is significant (less than 2% of the total material is 67–68) and were apparently a crucial component of theof wheelmade types). This was explained as “conservatism” Hyksos-period material culture complex. At the beginningby Åström (1966, 64), but it is also here that we see the vast of the Late Bronze Age, styles and production zonesquantities of White Painted ware that correlate so well with changed dramatically, apparently replaced almost entirely 8. Rethinking Kalopsidha: From specialisation to state marginalisation 69

by Cypriot-produced Base Ring and Red Lustrous ware considers it likely that some inhabitants of the coastal townsversions (Maguire 1995, 63). were transported back to their ancestral inland villages for The lack of eastern-style White Painted wares post-dating burial. Kalopsidha may therefore have been ideally placedLC IA at Enkomi or in New Kingdom/Late Bronze deposits as a centre for funerary and related ritual. Indications that(Maguire 2009, 18) suggests that Kalopsidha ceased to play the site may have remained active in the funerary industrya role in production and export at this time. Occupation at attested by Kalopsidha-style White Painted juglets found inthe site persisted for perhaps 100 years as evidenced by quantity not only at Enkomi but also at Ayios Iakovos andthe Trench 9 deposit, but based on comparison with the other sites in the Karpas as well as occasional examplesEnkomi assemblage it is likely that the majority of Trench 9 farther afield (details in Åström 1972a, 17–78; 1972b,use dates only just into LC IB with greatly reduced activity 53–68). Kalopsidha may have been supplanted by otherafter this. communities located on more direct routes to the copper It is reasonable to suppose that Kalopsidha and Enkomi sources, such as Athienou, in LC IIA. By this time, thehad a symbiotic relationship upon the first foundation Kalopsidhans had lost their niche, which was transferred toof the latter site, with Enkomi serving as a gateway for other localities producing and exporting juglets of Base Ringinland-produced goods and also taking advantage of the and Red Lustrous Wheelmade wares (Merrillees 1971).increased prosperity brought by interactions with the eastern The other possible reason for Kalopsidha’s decline mayMediterranean. It is worth noting that White Painted is have been that one of the ingredients needed for their specialthe only ware in the Enkomi settlement assemblage in product was no longer available. As Maguire has noted,which juglets form a significant component (around 25%, there is no reason to assume that Cypriot pottery vesselscontrasted with around 3% in other wares). Based on their contained Cypriot goods (1995, 54). From LC IA onwardsdeposition contexts, juglets appear to have played a largely Enkomi retained at least some of the Canaanite jars thatfunerary-specific role during the Cypriot Bronze Age, and were coming into the port. There are significant quantities ofgreater amounts in the settlement strata may therefore be Canaanite jars found in LC IA levels (c. 10% of the potteryinterpreted as the traces of these vessels passing through assemblage in both Areas I and III, Crewe 2007a, 124–125).the site for export (see Crewe 2007a, 132 for further The final demise of Kalopsidha’s international role maydiscussion). also be linked to the 50% reduction in Canaanite jars in LC Whilst the Trench 9 deposit may partially represent the IB deposits at Enkomi, potentially due to the disruption ofdebris of a ‘packaging’ centre, the crudely made, low-fired trading routes after the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egyptminiatures (painted and unpainted) found in abundance were (Maguire 1995, 63).certainly not exported and seem more likely to represent Taking into account the transportation to the site ofvotives manufactured perhaps by the ‘worshippers’ as bulk goods contained in Canaanite jars, the evidencesuggested for the cultic deposits at Athienou (Dothan of Levantine-influenced, locally-produced vessels forand Ben-Tor 1983, 56–57). The transformation from additional bulk storage, which were in turn exported,international production centre to rural sanctuary may have luxury goods in tombs (including equid burials), and thebeen facilitated by the tradition surrounding the goods local manufacture of quantities of fine, painted jugs andthat were produced: perfumed oil containers that played juglets that were also exported to the surrounding easterna crucial role in mortuary ritual. Perhaps in an effort to Mediterranean, we can speculate that both bulk commoditiesavoid losing their advantageous position as Enkomi began and value-added goods (Sherratt 1999) were being producedto become a focal centre in its own right, Kalopsidhans at Kalopsidha. The oft-repeated MC II “trickle” of exportsincreased production of the resource that they had long becoming a “flood” during MC III (Catling 1973, 174) mayspecialised in. The final style of the sequence, the White reflect new methods of intensifying production leading toPainted VI dated exclusively to LC I (Fig. 8.4, f), has a the adoption of the stylistic and technological innovationssimplified linear decoration but is still handmade. The seen in the Plain White ware. It is likely that the initialadherence to handmade painted forms may be a combination impetus for production was a local need for perfumedof maintaining the ready identification of a long-established oils for funerary use as part of the increased importanceproduct combined with an ‘if it isn’t broken don’t fix it’ of mortuary ritual in competitive display (Keswani 2005).attitude of producers. From LC IA, goods were being transported through Enkomi It has been suggested that mortuary consumption was a with the likely result that Enkomi eventually restricted the“driver of economic intensification” for copper production movement further inland of many of the imports. In addition,(Keswani 2004, 153). This may also be applied to perfumed if Kalopsidha’s early ascendancy was due to its ability tooils and the containers they were packaged in, with greater muster agricultural surplus, then once the eastern Mesaoriavalue attached to certain styles of known quality. Keswani became more extensively occupied it lost its uniqueness as(2004, 140) also notes that numbers of tombs within the LC Enkomi’s own hinterland comprises fine agricultural land.coastal centres are insufficient for the entire population and We will probably never be able to establish the exact role70 Lindy Crewe

of Kalopsidha in the initial stages of the move towards of wheelmade pottery on Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal ofcomplex society on Cyprus, but it seems likely that the Mediterranean Archaeology 20(2), 209–238.site’s later fortunes were linked closely to those of nearby Crewe, L. 2009. Regionalism and the first appearance of PlainEnkomi. When Enkomi was first founded we see perhaps the White Handmade Ware in the Middle Cypriot Bronze Age. In I. Hein (ed.) The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millenniumgreatest period of prosperity at Kalopsidha, but eventually B.C. Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronzeas Enkomi was transformed into a central place the site Age. Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the 4th Cyprologicalbecame marginalised and finally abandoned. Congress, May 2nd, 2008, Nicosia, 79–90. Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean. Vienna. Crewe, L., P. Croft, L. Graham and A. McCarthy 2008. FirstAcknowledgements preliminary report of excavations at Kissonerga-Skalia, 2007.I would like to thank Diane Bolger and Louise Maguire Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 105–119.for the organisation of and invitation to participate in Dikaios, P. 1969–1971. Enkomi. Excavations 1948–1958, vols. Ithis volume. Thanks also to Karen Slej and staff at the –IIIB. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern.Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm for permission to examine Dothan, T. and A. Ben-Tor 1983. Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus.material from Kalopsidha and to Rachel Sparks, Keeper of 1971–1972. Qedem 16. Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology,the UCL Institute of Archaeology collections for allowing The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Frankel, D. 1974. Middle Cypriot White Painted Pottery: Anme to examine the Tell el-‘Ajjul material from Petrie’s Analytical Study of the Decoration. Studies in Mediterraneanexcavations. This research was conducted whilst I held Archaeology 42. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag.the British Academy Reckitt Postdoctoral Fellowship Frankel, D. and J. M. Webb 1996. Marki-Alonia: An Early andin Archaeology at the University of Manchester, for Middle Bronze Age Town in Cyprus. Excavations 1990–1994.which I would like to gratefully acknowledge the British Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 123(1). Jonsered, PaulAcademy. Åströms Förlag. Gjerstad, E. 1926. Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus. Uppsala, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift. Horowitz, M. T. 2007. Monumentality and Social TransformationReferences at Late Bronze I Phlamoudhi-Vounari, Cyprus. UnpublishedÅström, P. 1966. Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University. Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 2. Lund, Paul Keswani, P. S. 2004. Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Åströms Förlag. Cyprus. London, Equinox.Åström, P. 1972a. The Middle Cypriot Bronze Age. The Keswani, P. S. 2005. Death, prestige and copper in Bronze Age Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV(1B). Lund, Swedish Cyprus Cyprus. American Journal of Archaeology 109, 341–401. Expedition. Knapp, A. B. 1988. Copper production and eastern MediterraneanÅström, P. 1972b. The Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Architecture trade: The rise of complex society on Cyprus. In J. Gledhill, and Pottery. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV(1C). Lund, B. Bender, and M. T. Larson (eds) State and Society. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and PoliticalÅström, P. 2001. Bichrome Hand-made Ware and Bichrome Wheel- Centralization, 149–169. One World Archaeology 4. London, made Ware on Cyprus. In P. Åström (ed.) The Chronology of Routledge. Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. Proceedings Maguire, L. C. 1995. Tell el-Dabca: The Cypriot connection. In of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, W. V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds) Egypt, the Aegean and the History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000, 131– Levant: Interconnections in the second Millennium BC, 54–65. 142. Stockholm, Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets London, British Museum. akademien. Maguire, L. C. 2009. Tell el-Dabca XXI: The Cypriot Pottery andBarlow, J. A. 1985. Middle Cypriot settlement evidence: A its Circulation in the Levant. Ausgrabungen in Tell el-Dabca perspective on the chronological foundations. Report of the (series ed. M. Bietak). Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 47–54. des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instititutes 33. Vienna.Catling, H. W. 1973. Cyprus in the Middle Bronze Age. In I. E. Manning, S. W., D. A. Sewell and E. Herscher 2002. Late Cypriot S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger IA maritime trade in action: Underwater survey at Maroni- (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. II(1). The History Tsaroukkas and the contemporary east Mediterranean trading of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800–1380 BC, system. Annual of the British School at Athens 97, 97–162. 165–175. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Merrillees, R. S. 1971. The early history of Late Cypriote I.Crewe, L. 2007a. Early Enkomi: Regionalism, Trade and Society Levant 3, 56–79. at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus. British Muhly, J. D. 1986. The role of Cyprus in the economy of the Archaeological Reports International Series 1706. Oxford, eastern Mediterranean during the second millennium B.C. In Archaeopress. V. Karageorghis (ed.) Acts of the International ArchaeologicalCrewe, L. 2007b. Sophistication in simplicity: The first production Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident’, 8. Rethinking Kalopsidha: From specialisation to state marginalisation 71

Nicosia, 8–14 September 1985, 45–60. Nicosia, Department Sherratt, E. S. 1999. E pur si muove: Pots, markets and values in the of Antiquities, Cyprus. second millennium Mediterranean. In J. P. Crielaard, V. StissiMyres, J. L. 1897. Excavations in Cyprus in 1894. Journal of and G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds) The Complex Past of Pottery Hellenic Studies 17,134–173. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean andPeltenburg, E. J. 1996. From isolation to state formation in Cyprus, Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC), 163–211. c. 3500–1500 BC. In V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides (eds) Proceedings of the ARCHON international conference held in The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Amsterdam 8–9 Novermber, 1996. Amsterdam, J. C. Gieben. Period to the Present, 17–43. Nicosia, University of Cyprus Sjöqvist, E. 1940. Reports on Excavations in Cyprus. Revised and Bank of Cyprus. Reprint from the Swedish Cyprus Expedition Finds and ResultsPeltenburg, E. J. 2008. Nitovikla and Tell el-Burak: Cypriot mid- of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931, vol 1 (text and plates). second millennium BC forts in a Levantine context. Report of Stockholm, Swedish Cyprus Expedition. the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 145–157. Swiny, S. 1972. Part II: The fortified settlement. In J. C. OverbeckPhilip, G. 1991. Cypriot bronzework in the Levantine world: and S. Swiny, Two Cypriot Bronze Age Sites at Kafkallia Conservatism, innovation and social change. Journal of (Dhali), 25–31. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 33. Mediterranean Archaeology 4(1), 59–107. Lund, Paul Åströms Förlag.Pilides, D. 1996. Storage jars as evidence of the economy of Watkins, T. W. 1966. Metal finds. In P. Åström, Excavations at Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. In V. Karageorghis and D. Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus, 113–115. Studies in Michaelides (eds) The Development of the Cypriot Economy Mediterranean Archaeology 2. Lund, Paul Åströms Förlag. from the Prehistoric Period to the Present, 107–124. Nicosia, Webb, J. M. 1999. Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice University of Cyprus and Bank of Cyprus. in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Studies in MediterraneanPilides, D. 2000. Pithoi of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: Types Archaeology Pocket-book 75. Jonsered, Paul Åströms För- from the Major Sites of the Period. Nicosia, Department of lag. Antiquities, Cyprus. 9

FROM KIN TO CLASS – AND BACK AGAIN!

CHANGING PARADIGMS OF THE EARLY POLITY

Anne Porter

In this celebration of Eddie Peltenburg’s career it is more society did not, or had not yet, then that society did notthan fitting to revisit a topic to which he has made such qualify as a state. Various terms have been applied to thisa significant contribution: the genesis and organisation of pre-state/state alternative entity in both the anthropologythe early polity in northern Syria. Since it is now widely of the contemporary world and the archaeology of therecognised that the neo-evolutionary models of the early ancient world: chiefdom (Earle 1997; Flannery 1999) andstate, as characterised either by developmental stages or segmentary society (Stephen and Peltenburg 2002) are twoclassificatory types, are no longer useful for understanding of the most prominent. Both in some way harken back to athese issues (see Yoffee 2005 for a succinct treatment), there kin/tribal basis for these pre/non-state societies despite theare a multitude of approaches and frameworks to consider. problematic nature of the term ‘tribe’. But as the emphasisBut whether we consider them in terms of the ‘archaic in American archaeology of the Near East shifted from thestate’ (Feinman and Marcus 1998), ‘incipient’, ‘nascent’ or problem of state formation to a more diverse set of issues,‘transitional’ states (all terms employed by Trigger 2003) or as excavation results increasingly found not the transition to‘early complex polities’ (Smith 2003), and whether they are the state but the remains of functioning polities or compleximplicit or explicit, there is an understanding in any study societies (Stein 1994; 1998), and as political theory shifted atof the early polity (my own terminological preference) that the same time as the practice of archaeology itself changed,something qualitatively, if not quantitatively, different has evidence began to emerge that the polities of the north, andoccurred in political history – a new state of political being, even of the south (Yoffee 2005, 110, 214), were not quitenot just in grand organisational terms but in terms of the so ‘developed’ as to have entirely abandoned kin relationsway people conceive of themselves and their interactions for class structures long after such changes were supposedwith others, has come into existence. to have been accomplished. In the past one key aspect of this change in political This then seems to require a choice: are the earlybeing was characterised as a shift from kin-based societies politics of northern Mesopotamia not far enough along the– where people both understood their place in the world continuum to really qualify as states? Or should we thinkand their responsibilities to others to be arranged according about the situation in entirely other frameworks? Thereto their blood relations, i.e. their birth into a certain group is an interesting divergence here between highly local– to a class-based society where the affinities (or lack studies of the polity and global ones: those focussed onthereof) between much larger numbers of unrelated people northern Mesopotamia tend to the former by employingwho coexisted in the same space were derived from their the term ‘tribe’ (Steinkeller 1999; Stein 2004; Cooperposition in socio-economic hierarchies (for a random sample 2006; 2007) or, like ‘segmentary society’, a label basedsee Adams 1966, 80; Yoffee 1993, 69; but cf Yoffee 1997, on characteristics of the tribe (such as Peltenburg 2007a,261–262; see also Zagarell 1986, 416; Pollock 1991, 177; 11) and deriving ultimately from a long history of usage inMcCorriston 1997, 518; Trigger 2003, 152–153). The anthropology (Morgan 1877; Evans-Pritchard 1940; Serviceapplicability of this change was universal. In some way or 1962; Sahlins 1968; see Peletz 1995, 353 for its differentanother all societies went through it – or didn’t. If a given meanings). Those situated in a larger discourse opt for other 9. From kin to class – and back again! Changing paradigms of the early polity 73

approaches altogether (e.g. Blanton 1998; Smith 2003; or consider themselves to be members of, and thereforeYoffee 2005). I would like to bring both together in this governed by, the polity. It does not matter if the polity doespaper by considering local northern Mesopotamian polities not have the means to enforce its desires over this catchmentthrough a different framework, one which does not contrast area, only that its members think it does.one state of political being (tribe) with another (state) But a dispersed polity might also include scatteredbecause practices of social and political interaction, which components integrated into a single entity through conquest,are entirely interdigitated but not necessarily correlative, for example, where control is more direct than only thevary from polity to polity in northern Mesopotamia. In each paying of tribute (Wattenmaker 1994, 197–198) or as whenpolity there are situations where kinship is the dominant Samsi Addu appointed one son over Mari, the other overmode of interaction and situations where socio-economic Ekallatum while he ruled at Shubat Enlil (van der Mieroopposition (‘class’ is not really an apt term) and/or civic 2004, 102). An extended morphology, in contrast, positsidentity is operable and administrative structures are framed a more regularised spatial connection, somewhat like anthrough and deploy all modes of interaction at different arm stretched out to hold in hand a distant object. Thetimes. This variability characterises both early polities and Assyrian trading colonies might provide such an example,much later ones and extends far beyond northern Syria as where stable and frequently utilised routes of passagewell. It is therefore not a matter of viewing the northern and communication between homeland and colony arepolities as less than fully developed states, but of thinking maintained whether through treaty or tribute, so that itabout the state differently, perhaps indeed dispensing with appears as if the homeland controls the space of the routesit (and associated terminologies) as an analytical frame of themselves. While these terms represent different points on areference altogether. continuum, there are others that represent different ways of The only way to depict such variability is to employ spatial distribution entirely, and so multiple terms to describea wide range of descriptive terms on a contingent basis morphology might be used of any one polity.because the production of monolithic paradigms driven Variable polity morphologies are in evidence over aby the need for succinct ways of expressing political very long period in the Near East, starting at least in theorganisation, as well as the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of its change, 4th millennium. The relationship between Habuba Kabiraleads ultimately to a counter-productive reductionism (see and Uruk, for example, might represent a bifurcated politySmith 2003, 40 and note 9). There are many ways of thinking or a dispersed model if integrated political relationshipsabout the constituent relationships contained within the early (as opposed to only economic ones coupled with socialpolity (cf Stein 1998), but there are at least four that top memory of chronologically distant origins) really can bemy list and consequently four sets of terminologies to be demonstrated between Uruk and some of the other sitesdeveloped. One way is in terms of the spatial organisation that share its material culture. In the 3rd millennium Eblaof the polity, which I term polity morphology. It tends to controlled Carchemish (Fronzaroli 2003) and perhaps Emarbe a given in most discussions of the Near Eastern state as well (Archi and Biga 2003, 10).While evidence for thesethat a polity controls contiguous territory, either in a highly relationships has prompted some to claim that Ebla was acircumscribed manner such as the Mesopotamian city state massive empire (e.g. Astour 1992), there is no indication,or in the broader manner of the Syrian state, with the empire archaeological or textual, that substantiates a claim forbeing the most attenuated, but still contiguous, form. Yet contiguous territory from Emar to Ebla to Carchemish;the very idea of colonialism, largely accepted as pertaining indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. There were clearlyin some way in the 4th millennium (Surenhagen 1986; independent kingdoms in between. The dispersed polity ofAlgaze 1993) raises other possibilities, one of which is the Samsi Addu has already been mentioned, but it may not have‘bifurcated polity’ in which two components of the same been the only non-contiguous polity of the 2nd millennium:political entity exist at a distance from each other. A wide the Emutbala kingdom of Larsa may have constituted somerange of political relationships may be posited for this spatial form of bifurcated polity with the Yamutbal of northernsituation, ranging from two essentially independent groups Syria (Porter 2009; see also Steinkeller 2004).only nominally connected, to differential specialisations Ideas about the effective limitations of direct politicalamong the components of the bifurcated polity (Porter control over space (e.g. Johnson 1978; Giddens 1981) are no2009). A ‘dispersed polity’ is one that has a significant doubt part of the reason that divergent polity morphologies arecomponent of its populace engaged in mobile enterprises, not well considered, but there are multiple ways of stretchingincluding, but not limited to, both localised and broad-range time and space, so that the distance that may be travelled inpastoralism, where territorial usage shifts, either seasonally a day (Flannery 1999, 5) does not condition the degree toor over the long term. On this issue I diverge from Smith which, or the ways, a polity might extend itself. However, the(2003, 153), who argues that a polity and its catchment spatial organisation of a polity and the territorial relationshipsarea are not coterminous. They may be, if the people who within it do pose a set of problems for political organisationutilise the catchment area are in fact governed by the polity and operation, just as the way a society is organised may74 Anne Porter

constrain the potential for different territorial configurations. (Holy 1996, 40) and can be used to construct inclusionaryAs I have recently argued (Porter 2009), kinship practices societies where linkages are made between groups thatmight be part of the way a polity maintains integrity over might sometimes be far distant in time and space, andspace, but this should not be taken to mean that this is always exclusionary societies where membership of the group isthe case nor that kinship may not be an equally critical restricted through a narrow conception of kin relationscomponent of contiguous or local polities. Nevertheless, (Porter 2002b). Kinship, moreover, may be used to createdifferences in how kinship systems are structured and how and substantiate differentiation within a kin-based systemkinship practices work between bifurcated, dispersed and where members of one lineage are privileged over otherscontiguous polities would not be surprising. (usually that closest to the founding ancestor), leading to Kinship systems and practices form a key component of authoritarian structures of power and/or segregated elites; orsocial configuration, the complex of structures, ideologies it may work to promote corporate political behaviour whereand practices that form the basis of social interaction, and social-economic differences are offset by kin connectionsthe second way in which polities vary in their organisation across hierarchies. Kinship, despite long academic traditionsand operation. Kinship, defined ego-centrically or intra- of assumptions otherwise (again, summarised succinctly bygenerationally (the living kin of an individual) and socio- Yoffee 2005, 23), implies nothing about political operation.centrically or multi-generationally (the relationships accrued Not all kinship systems are the same, and kinship systemsthrough having a common ancestor or common descent; see do not in themselves give rise to one form of politicalHoly 1996; Fowles 2002) is in evidence in one way or another, organisation and operation or another. Kinship is a set ofand from a variety of sources, as a powerful component of social rules and resources. The state, on the other hand, isthe social worlds of a large number of sites across Syria. a political structure in which different social configurationsSince kinship is established by both horizontal and vertical may pertain.relationships and can be socially constructed as opposed The equation of kinship structures with a) a particular typeto only attributed by birth (Porter 2009, 215), genealogies, of political form or b) pre- or non-state societies, especiallyancestor practices such as the kispu (Tsukimoto 1985), certain when viewed through the lens of ancestor practices, isrituals of association (Durand 1992, 117; Bonechi 1997, 480) therefore misleading. Moreover, kinship and a high degree ofand relationship terminologies (e.g. Sasson 1998, 462) may social stratification are not mutually exclusive, for they mayall be considered evidence of it. Archaeological evidence is be functional in different arenas of life, so that individualsperhaps a little less direct, but it is nevertheless persuasive become embedded in multiple and cross-cutting socialand can be found in burial practices (Peltenburg 2007b); networks. This understanding stems from Service (1962) andarchitecture (Dohmann-Pfälzner and Pfälzner 1996); the is one aspect of neo-evolutionary frameworks that has beenspatial organisation of a settlement (Porter 2009); and even sadly neglected in archaeological discourse (although seeindividual artifacts (Hempelmann n.d. a; n.d. b). Fowles 2002). Members of a single kin group may occupy Much of the data for some form of kinship, however, different levels of a social hierarchy. A grouping based onis interpreted as creating and perpetuating various kinds socio-economic position may include members of multipleof ancestor systems (Peltenburg 1999; Porter 2000; 2002a; kin groups, and which set of allegiances is invoked willSchwartz 2007). There is, of course, the possibility that depend on the situation at hand.once having discovered ancestors we are inclined to see Nevertheless, systems of social standing, kinship andthem everywhere (Whitley 2002), but the written evidence ancestor practices all form a critical part of the third arenadoes support such claims made of burial practices. The in which polities vary, political ethos, by which I meanrelationship between ancestor traditions and political the way a group conceives of itself and its members’systems is not straightforward, however. Ancestors can be relationship to it in terms of its character and principlesdeployed to do different things in different ways at different (Porter 2009) and which can be described as, amongst othertimes. Kinship systems and ancestor practices do not even ways, communitarian, familial, hierarchical, authoritarian,have to work in tandem, and it is possible that ancestor heterarchical, heterogeneous and factional. An ethos,practices exist without functioning kinship systems as relict however, does not necessarily correspond to politicalof earlier practices that have since disappeared, leaving only practice, the fourth element of my framework for thinkinga rhetoric of legitimation behind. Kinship rules may work to about the early polity, for practice is situated in the short-define who has membership of a network of living relations term and may vary considerably over even a generation orwhile the practices that create and perpetuate ancestors, may be continually contested (e.g. Fowles 2002, 26), soranging from burial customs to commemorative rituals, that what we see in the archaeological record is either anmay have nothing to do with group membership at all but aggregate of that contest, with actual practice and desiredwork to perpetuate an ideal vision of society or implement practice indistinguishable, or one side of the contest manifesta socio-civic code of moral authority (Porter 2002a). more overtly in material ways. Moreover, a political ethos In broadest terms, kin relations are “potentially boundless” is established by multiple factors: it is “the political, social 9. From kin to class – and back again! Changing paradigms of the early polity 75

and religious ideologies and practices that produce and/or here is to think about the wide range of possibilities inherentexpress and/or perpetuate a group’s self-conception, world in any given body of material rather than assume that oneviews, place within that world, internal organization, and model should fit (meaning that another does not).operation” (Porter 2009, 213), whereas political practice The four perspectives and accompanying descriptivecomprises just the last two components of that list. It is what terms proposed here are only some among many that mightpeople actually do, whatever the structural and ideological be brought to bear as a way of conveying the nature ofcontent of a society suggest to us it is that they should be any particular polity under consideration. Space precludesdoing, or even that they think they are doing. However, the detailed demonstration of this approach and its outcomes,same sorts of terms might well be employed to describe but a brief summary of some of its implications for oneactual political practice as are used for ethos. site is possible. At Ebla, religious, administrative and More often than not, I suspect, it is ethos that we recover productive functions and activities located in the city liefrom the material record (and even texts), but we mistake it at the core of a network of related functions and activitiesfor practice because of our assumptions about correlations located around and outside the city itself, maintained inbetween material categories, such as architectural form part by the distribution of members of the ruling family,and socio-political organisation (see, for example, Porter officials and their residences throughout the countryside in2007a, 84; and cf. Smith 2003, 230–231). What is more, smaller towns (Archi 1990, 53; 1992, 25), and in part byancient representations of ethos must be carefully separated royal rituals of pilgrimage (Fronzaroli 1992; 1993; Archifrom our own. Large-scale architecture determined to be 2005, 90; Porter 2007a). Rather than reading Ebla as thesecular equals a palace; a palace equals at minimum an northern archetype of the highly urbanised and centralisedelite segregated from society and holding a monopoly of state in the 3rd millennium, the archaeological and textualpower. But heterarchical political practice might be hidden evidence actually presents a decentralised polity in bothbecause other authority structures such as ‘elders’ do not morphology and practice.necessarily have a dedicated space in which they function, Morphologically the polity of Ebla is composed of a serieswhile extensive monumental architecture may convey a of contiguous and non-contiguous elements, ranging from themore powerful public authority than necessarily exists. as yet unlocated URU.BAR (translated as ‘suburbs’) in which Although arguments might be made for the continued many of the workers of the palace are thought to live (Archiutility of some form of classificatory system (Fowles 2002, 1982, 212; Arcari 1988, 128) to more remote dependent13–14), my aim here is not to identify a particular kind of villages in its territory and the separate subordinate towns,political unit or categorise systems of power distribution, but such as Carchemish, it controlled. Political practice seemsto recognise the multiple sets of social and political networks equally complex and may be familial in that power is sharedin which people operate that come together to constitute the across an extended family structure; heterarchical in that therenature of any given polity – a close reading of the data in is some indication that parallel systems of authority exist (butorder to produce an “inter-emic” (Campbell 2007, 6) view cf. Stone 1999 for a different application of heterarchy andof existence. I have deliberately refrained from adducing hierarchy); and decentralised if the distributed componentsarchaeological correlates to any of these descriptive terms of the polity are effectively integrated through an equivalentbecause not only do I wish to avoid any implication of spatial distribution of power as represented, for example, byreification, but also because recent discussions of materiality the residences of princes and other officials. Because the(e.g. Miller 2005) indicate that categories of material archaeological sources come from one component of thatculture and even individual objects may contain multiple spatial system (the mound of Tell Mardikh, which clearly doesand conflicting situations within themselves, especially not comprise the entire city, let alone the polity of Ebla) and“when one chooses to express one’s dissent with a situation the written sources come from an even more restricted place,through the very institutions [or artefacts (my insertion)] that the so-called ‘palace’, we certainly have a disproportionateultimately recreate it” (Dobres and Robb 2000, 9). One should view of the power of the palace’s occupant, the ‘king’ andneither choose which aspect is most relevant nor explain the range of his control (cf. Biga 1995). Yet the texts alsoone away in favour of the other; nor, in fact, should one give evidence of other bodies that play a part in governance,even attempt to resolve the contradiction. Both are equally even if the lack of equivalent representation of their actionspresent and equally valid, and the question concerns only and responsibilities obscures their precise role.what happens when such contradictions are engaged. A high Several factors evident in the documentation indicatedegree of monumentalism, for example, is seen variously as the complexity of political practice and ethos at Ebla, asthe product of chiefly behaviour and an indicator of the state, well as the moments of disjuncture between them. Forand it is not that one interpretation is necessarily wrong but example, the repeated use of EN-EN, plural ‘kings’ (Archithat both situations are possible and can occur at the same 2001) and the near equivalence of operable power betweentime. Similarly, a certain form of basket may embody both minister and king raise questions about the assumption ofoppression and resistance (Meskell 2005), so that the point autocracy at Ebla, and might be interpreted as power sharing76 Anne Porter

between minister as belonging to a subsidiary branch of the References

house/lineage/family, and the head of that body, however Adams, R. McC. 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago,it is constituted, the king. Another possibility is the idea University of Chicago Press.of a corporate dynasty where rule is in some way passed Algaze, G. 1993. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics andacross a plurality of royals (Michalowski 1988, 271) or Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago,collateral lines (Biga and Pomponio 1987, 61). The crown is University of Chicago Press.common property within this extended family even though Arcari, E. 1988. The administrative organization of the city ofit was held by one member at a time. But the evidence Ebla. In H. Hauptmann and H. Waetzold (eds) Wirtschaft undfor ancestor practices at Ebla (Archi 1986; 1988a; 1988b; Gesellschaft von Ebla: Akten der Internationalen Tagung, Heidelberg 4–7 November 1986, 125–130. Heidelberg, Heidel-2002; Porter 2000) indicates that descent is part and parcel berger Orientverlag.of establishing royal lineages rather than intra-generational Archi, A. 1982. About the organization of the Eblaite state. Studities and so perhaps operates to restrict the people who Eblaiti 5, 201–220.could lay claim to kingship; the distribution of the holdings Archi, A. 1986. Die ersten zehn Könige von Ebla. Zeitschrift fürof junior members of the line outside the city might also Assyriologie 76, 213–217.serve to limit competition for kingship. At the same time, Archi, A. 1988a. Cult of the ancestors and tutelary god at Ebla.I take EN.EN to refer to previous kings and to indicate In Y. L. Arbeitmen (ed.) Fucus: A Semitic/Afrasian Gatheringtheir importance as complicit, active even, in the continued in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, 109–110. CILT 58.practice of governance. So while there may be an ethos of Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.extended family rule, an intent, actual practices end up far Archi, A. 1988b. Testi amministrativi: Registrazioni di metalli emore restrictive in outcome. tessuti (archivio L.2769). ARET 7. Rome, Missione archeo- logica italiana in Siria. Meanwhile, the presence of elders in the background of Archi, A. 1990. Agricultural production in the Ebla region. Lesroyal authority raises other questions of political practice, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 60, 50–55.and although Marchesi (2006, 14) claims that the term Archi, A. 1992. The city of Ebla and the organization of the ruralABxÁŠ-sù indicates not elders but a class of officials, territory. Altorientalische Forschungen 19, 24–28.nevertheless the ABxÁŠ-sù are often present at moments Archi, A. 2002. Jewels for the ladies of Ebla. Zeitschrift fürof decision making although their views are not represented Assyriologie 92(2), 161–199.in the palace sources. This might suggest they have their Archi, A. 2005. The Head of Kura – the Head of ’Adabal. Journalown authority, if in a different sphere. It may be a situation of Near Eastern Studies 64(2), 81–100.of heterarchy where two parallel structures of power and/or Archi, A. and M.-G. Biga 2003. A victory over Mari and the fallauthority exist side by side, in congruence, or perhaps more of Ebla. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 55, 1–44.likely, in competition. It may be a function of dispersed Astour, M. 1992. An outline of the history of Ebla (part 1). In C. Gordon (ed.) Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaitemorphology where ABxÁŠ-sù constituted part of the Language 3, 3–82. Winona Lake (IN), Eisenbrauns.administration in locations removed from Ebla itself, and Biga, M.-G. 1995. Review of A. Archi, Five Tablets from thewho were present in the city when issues concerning the Southern Wing of Palace G. Journal of the American Orientalpolity as a whole were at stake. Society 115, 297–298. Rather than conclude that because at Ebla there are Biga, M.-G. and F. Pomponio 1987. Iš’ar-Damu, roi d’Ebla.‘elders’ (who are in any case a group not necessarily based Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires. Nouvelleson kinship at all), this was essentially, or originally, a tribal assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 4, 60–61.society (as does Stein 2004, 74, following Klengel 1992, 33), Blanton, R. 1998. Beyond centralization: Steps toward a theoryit is necessary to think more complexly about what the co- of egalitarian behavior. In G. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds)occurrence of king and elders means for ethos, configuration, Archaic States, 135–172. Santa Fe, Schools of Americanpractice and morphology. Equally, rather than assume that Research Press. Bonechi, M. 1997. Lexique et ideologie royale à l’époquebecause there is a large and elaborate structure located on protosyrienne. MARI 8, 477–535.an acropolis that there is an authoritarian power structure Cooper, L. 2006. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. Newpresent engendered by socio-economic hierarchies (class), it York, Routledge.is necessary to think more complexly about the relationship Cooper, L. 2007. Early Bronze Age burial types and socio-culturalbetween material culture and ethos, configuration, practice identity within the northern Euphrates valley. In E. Peltenburgand morphology (e.g. Porter 2007b, 102–105). Conversely, (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement: The Carchemish Sectorconsidering the evidence in terms of ethos, configuration, in the Third Millennium BC, 55–70. Levant Supplementarypractice and morphology allows us to think more complexly Series 5. Oxford, Oxbow.about the early polity. Polity cannot be understood through Campbell, R. 2007. Blood, Flesh and Bones: Kinship and Violencecategorisation of a few components considered indicative in the Social Economy of the Late Shang. Unpublished Ph.D.of this way of being or that, only through the various ways thesis, Harvard University.a multiplicity of components interconnect. 9. From kin to class – and back again! Changing paradigms of the early polity 77

Disciplinary Perspectives, 199–223. Oriental Institute Seminars Stephen, F. and E. Peltenburg 2002. Scientific analyses of Uruk 5. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ceramics from Jerbalus Tahtani and other Middle-UpperSahlins, M. D. 1968. Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), Prentice- Euphrates sites. In J. N. Postgate (ed.) Artefacts of Complexity: Hall. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, 173–190. Cambridge,Sasson, J. 1998. The king and I: A Mari king in changing British School of Archaeology in Iraq. perceptions. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118(4), Stone, E. 1999. The constraints on state and urban form in ancient 453–470. Mesopotamia. In M. Hudson and B. Levine (eds) UrbanizationSchwartz, G. 2007. Status, ideology and memory in third- and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East, 203–227. millennium Syria: “Royal” tombs at Umm al-Marra. In N. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Bulletin 7. Laneri (ed.) Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, 39–68. Surenhagen, D. 1986. The dry farming belt: The Uruk period and Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the subsequent developments. In H. Weiss (ed.) The Origins of University of Chicago. Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the ThirdService, E. 1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York, Millennium B.C., 7–43. Guilford, Four Quarters. Random House. Trigger, B. 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations. Cambridge,Smith, A. T. 2003. The Political Landscape: Constellations of Cambridge University Press. Authority in Early Complex Polities. Berkeley, University of Tsukimoto, A. 1985. Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im California Press. alten Mesopotamien. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 216.Stein, G. 1994. Economy, ritual and power in ‘Ubaid Mesopotamia. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag. In G. Stein and M. Rothman (eds) Chiefdoms and Early States Van der Mieroop, M. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity, ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford, Blackwell. 35–46. Monographs in World Archaeology 18. Madison, Wattenmaker, P. 1994. Political fluctuations and local exchange Prehistory Press. systems in the ancient Near East: Evidence from the EarlyStein, G. 1998. Heterogeneity, power, and political economy: Bronze Age settlements at Kurban Höyük. In G. Stein and Some current research issues in the archaeology of Old World M. Rothman (eds) Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near complex societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 6(1), East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity, 193–208. 1–44. Monographs in World Archaeology 18. Madison, PrehistoryStein, G. 2004. Structural parameters and sociocultural factors in Press. the economic organization of northern Mesopotamian urbanism Whitley, J. 2002. Too many ancestors. Antiquity 76, 119–26. in the third millennium B.C. In A. G. Feinman and L. Nichols Yoffee, N. 1993. Too many chiefs? (or, safe texts for the ’90s). In (eds) Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt (eds) Archaeological Theory: Who 61–79. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press. Sets the Agenda?, 60–78. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversitySteinkeller, P. 1999. Land tenure conditions in third millennium Press. Babylonia: The problem of regional variation. In M. Hudson Yoffee, N. 1997. The obvious and chimerical: City-states in and B. Levine (eds) Privatization in the Ancient Near East archaeological perspective. In D. Nichols and T. Charlton (eds) and Classical World, vol. 1, 289–329. Peabody Museum of The Archaeology of City States: Cross-Cultural Approaches, Archaeology and Ethnology Bulletin 5. Cambridge, Harvard 255–263. Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution. University Press. Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the Archaic State. Cambridge, CambridgeSteinkeller, P. 2004. A history of mashkan-shapir and its role in University Press. the kingdom of Larsa. In E. Stone and P. Zimansky (eds) The Zagarell, A. 1986. Trade, women, class and society in ancient Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City, 26–42. Winona Lake (IN), western Asia. Current Anthropology 27, 415–430. Eisenbrauns. 10

DIFFERENT MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURING

AT THE RISE OF HIERARCHICAL SOCIETIES IN THE NEAR EAST: PRIMARY ECONOMY VERSUS LUXURY AND DEFENCE MANAGEMENT

Marcella Frangipane

The Near East, which has been the theatre of the first of it for their own maintenance. One structure which clearlyemergence of politically centralised societies, clearly shows exemplifies this type of society is the conical clan systemdifferent evolutionary pathways in this process, leading (Kirchhof 1959).to very different social, economic and political systems, The various combinations and dialectical relationsdepending on the original structural features of the societies between these two categories of factors (social and environ-in which this process occurred and the conditions of the mental) produced different economic and political systemsenvironment. in the prehistoric Near East, which resulted in very different One of the crucial distinguishing factors was the presence types and stability of central power structures. In this paperor absence of an associated phenomenon of urban growth. I shall consider three well known examples which appearThere are pronounced differences between urban and non- to be very meaningful in this respect.urban systems of central political governance, particularlyentailing a different degree and a different need forintegration between the various social and economiccomponents. Integration and interdependence, which grow Southern Mesopotamia: The Elite Controlstronger as territories become more urbanised, engender a of Staple Economyneed for central authority to play a mediating role between In southern Mesopotamia, from the first occupation of thethe parties in the economy conduction. In non-urbanised alluvial plain around the end of the 7th to the beginning ofsocieties, conversely, the rise of a central political power the 6th millennium cal BC, both of the conditions mentionedis usually less intrinsically necessary for the functioning of above – great agriculture potential and a social/kinshipthe socio-economic system. system containing the germ of hierarchies – seem to have The discriminating factors for the formation of highly been met.urbanised and centralised systems appear to be mainly The territory is extremely varied from the point of viewof two types: 1) environmental: the growth of large of subsistence resources (large areas of land for extensiveconcentrations of people in urban settlements is only cereal farming, areas for horticulture, range-lands, coastspossible if there are conditions for a highly productive and rivers for fishing), but above all it has extremely highagriculture, generating large and continuously increasing agricultural potential. However, there were also serious risksurpluses; 2) social: a system of social and kinship relations factors due to the inclement climate (hot and arid), whichemphasising the separate and competitive role of individual may have caused some drought years and soil salinisationhousehold units, fostering the legitimation of differences (Adams 1966, 48–59; 1981, 1–26; Pollock 1999, 28–44).within which higher status members of the society can On the whole, the climate was fairly homogeneous, but onemerge. It is this intrinsic status of social privilege, accepted the other hand the specific conditions in each zone differedby all, which can deeply legitimise the leaders appointed to because of the variability of the sources and courses of water,wield political power and, above all, administer the wealth as Adams has clearly shown (1981, 3–11, 14–22).of the community, even perhaps partly appropriating some All this must have helped the formation of societies80 Marcella Frangipane

which were both very cohesive and coordinated in order to the growth itself of hierarchical relations transformedaddress common problems, but at the same time with strong society into something new. The final outcome was veryinternal competition to hoard the best resources. Both factors strong economic centralisation with regular flows of goodsmay have led to the need for central institutions or chiefs and labour towards the places where public activities wereto mediate the circulation of subsistence products between performed. The centralisation of resources may have takenareas of economic specialisation, and to deal effectively place by obtaining tributes and/or concentrating meanswith the hazards (Algaze 2008, 40–68). of production, such as land and livestock (ideologically I would suggest that the Ubaid society in Lower Meso- perhaps the land and livestock of the gods administeredpotamia already showed this structure, perhaps dating back by their representatives), which could only be productiveto its earliest phases (Stein 1994). The size and layout of the by making people work for the central authorities. Thishouses at Tell el Oueili (Huot 1989; 1991) from the earliest system may have produced accumulation of wealth inperiods of occupation reveal the organisation of communities terms of staple goods, basically food. But the basis forinto large, quite separate and distinct households, perhaps the functioning of this type of centralised economy was alarge families, which were subsequently to characterise substantial outlay of resources – especially foodstuffs – tolater Mesopotamian society. The central and southern the population to compensate their work. ‘Redistribution’,Mesopotamian settlements of the 6th millennium show little which has been traditionally considered the parallel aspectsharing of domestic activities in the open spaces between the of ‘centralisation’, was not always associated with a realhouses or in communal facilities, but in the south there is accumulation of goods in the hands of central authoritiesthe appearance of important buildings for public ceremonial (cf the Neolithic redistribution in communal storehouses;events (Bernbeck 1995, 14–17; Frangipane 2007a). While Akkermans and Duistermaat 1996), but in the early statewe know very little about the specific function of the systems it indeed became an effective tool for the investment‘temples’ at Eridu, their architecture and content suggest in labour by the elites, acting as a sort of entrepreneurthat they were in any event public places where activities, (Frangipane 2000a). The increasingly more sophisticatedprobably related to a kind of ritualised redistribution of food, procedures of administrative control, which were furtherwere performed (Safar et al. 1981). developed to manage this intense movement of goods and It is possible that the people performing public activities activities by producing the emergence of an expanding classwith social and economic functions were preeminent of officials, made it possible to broaden considerably theindividuals or households who were recognised as such sphere of power exercised by the elites, also in territorialby their communities by virtue of having been created by terms. For a long time, centralised goods continued to bea conical or pyramidal social/kinship structure. Possible mainly food and means of subsistence production (Yoffeesupport for this hypothesis can be seen at the small village 1995; Frangipane 1996; Liverani 1998; Pollock 1999,of Tell Abada in the Hamrin region (Jasim 1989), which 79–116). This can also be inferred from the contents of thedespite being outside the southern alluvial plain is almost numerous Uruk pictographic tablets (Nissen 1986; Nissenthe only Ubaid site extensively excavated so far. There were et al.1993), and the main basis for the expanding wealth ofno temples here, and the houses appear to have followed elites continued to be the control of labour. The distributionthe same general architectural model and performed the of rations became the main feature of Uruk society, and thesame kind of activities, though different in size. But one of generalised distribution of meals in public (and, to a lesserthese houses shows peculiar traits in terms of architecture degree, also private) places, as suggested by the exponentialand associated evidence (Jasim 1989; Forest 1996, 59) and increase in mass-produced bowls, points to the provisionmight be interpreted as the residence of a preeminent family. of labour services by workers, and hence to increasingThis house, moreover, was probably seen as symbolically inequalities.representing the whole community, as is suggested by the This flow of goods and labour certainly attracted moreconcentration of numerous children’s burials specifically people to the places where they were concentrated, boostingunder its floor. There may have been another house by the urbanisation. This was made possible by the potential forside of this one, which was also distinct from the majority expanding agriculture in Lower Mesopotamia, which wasof the village houses in terms of size and architectural able to maintain a large urban population. But the crucialfeatures, suggesting a possible stratification of social status factor for its development was, in my opinion, the structuretypical of kinship and hierarchical genealogical systems of Mesopotamian society itself, which fostered the unequal(Frangipane 1996, 124). organisation of production and consumption and the rise of It is this model of society that became fully established a solid, centrally directed system. The assumed stratifiedin the Uruk period. The specific features of 4th millennium structure in terms of large households of different socialLower Mesopotamia seem to have been a great development status would have helped to maintain and strengthen theof the basic features just described for the Ubaid society. hierarchical relationships between families and communities,But by expanding the privileges in the economic sphere, giving a solid basis to social elites, who could embody 10. Different models of power structuring at the rise of hierarchical societies in the Near East 81

authority and, thanks to competition for resources, gradually elites who wielded their power in expanding centres withacquire economic privileges. The ideologically ‘natural’ administrative control over food and labour, above all incharacter of these inequalities must have found its best monumental public buildings. In several cases these wereexpression in the ceremonial aspects of public activities, sacred or ceremonial buildings. Tepe Gawra (Tobler 1950;which were largely concentrated in monumental, probably Rothman 2002) is the site showing the greatest evidence ofsacred areas. The close relationship of the social elites with this newly arising situation around the beginning of the 4ththe gods, typical of the hierarchical kinship systems, gave millennium (Late Chalcolithic 1–2).them the full right to exercise their authority. The system of competition between households also The undisputed recognition of a common ‘authority’ seems to have emerged in the northern regions, as evidencedwould also have made it possible to establish a stable by the development of the mass production of bowls andnetwork of relations between villages and the emerging the adoption of the administrative control system based onurban centres throughout the territory, thereby guaranteeing sealing goods in the private sphere, as well as the publicthe flow of food and labour, which alone would have made one. The increasingly widespread use of sealings and seals init possible for the full urban model to become established the level XII and level XI houses at Tepe Gawra and in theand to gradually and constantly develop. houses at the Late Ubaid site of Degirmentepe in Anatolia (Esin 1989; 1994), together with the widespread adoption of mass-produced bowls, indicates transactions between households and not only the management of goods in the public places in which a central authority was becomingFrom Egalitarian to Hierarchical in Northern institutionalised. The Gawra XII White Room House, whichGreater Mesopotamia: A Deep Structural Change was larger than the others, had more sealings than the others,The organisational structure of the communities in northern and was also characterised by the presence of numerousMesopotamia and eastern/south-eastern Anatolia from the child burials under the floors, very closely resembles theearliest occupation of Jezira in the 7th millennium cal ‘house of the chieftain’ in the southernmost Ubaid villageBC until the establishment of the Halaf culture in the 6th of Tell Abada. This suggests the presence of preeminentmillennium appeared to be radically different (Frangipane families there with community leadership functions.1996, 53–87; 2007a, 154–164). Smaller villages with a mixed This Mesopotamian-type system became fully entrenchedagricultural, livestock, and hunting economy, in which the by around the middle of the 4th millennium (Late Chalcolithicrole of individual households was hardly recognisable in the 3) when the archaeological documentation reveals sitesarchitectural structures of the settlements and were therefore that were probably dominant over their region, such as Tellnot primary in social and perhaps also economic terms, Brak and Arslantepe, which also had imposing monumentaloften had large buildings for common storage, evidencing public architecture. Tell Brak appears to have been a realcollective ways of storing and redistributing food supplies and large centre before the mid-4th millennium (Oates andand surpluses (Akkermans 1996; Akkermans and Duistermaat Oates 1997; Emberling and McDonald 2003; Oates et al.1996). This appears as a society with small units scattered 2007) and must have had high status figures exercising aacross a wide territory with almost no evidence of hierarchies, political control over the area; Arslantepe had a preeminentand engaged in different subsistence activities varying from zone on the highest part of the ancient mound with buildingsone zone to another, sometimes also with specialisation and of the elites, probably residential buildings, with fully localthe resultant need for mutual cooperation and collective ways architecture and a large temple or ceremonial buildingof managing food (Verhoeven 1999, 203–220; Frangipane with a tripartite Mesopotamian-type layout used mainly for2007a, 154–161). These must therefore have been very distributing meals under administrative control (Frangipanecohesive, economically integrated tribal and basically 2000b; 2003). Both these sites show material culturesegalitarian communities, probably composed of various and which were basically independent from any direct southerndistinct socio-economic components. They had no temples Mesopotamian influence. In other words, there seems toor preeminent buildings, and they showed no evidence of have been a process of assimilating and appropriating thesocial stratification. southern socio-economic model, and adapting it to northern This situation changed radically with the spread in the traditions and conditions.north of the Ubaid cultural and social model during the The new and different expansion of southern groupscourse of the 5th millennium. This is not the appropriate into the north during the Middle (Late Chalcolithic 4) andplace to examine why and how this southern model spread Late (Late Chalcolithic 5) Uruk phases took place on thisnorthwards (Breniquet 1996). But the outcome that can cultural and socio-economic substrate (once again, I shallbe seen throughout the area of Upper Mesopotamia and not go into the reasons and nature of this phenomenonthe Middle and Upper Euphrates as far as the eastern and the related debate). What occurred in the latter halfAnatolian mountains was the emergence of societies with of the 4th millennium throughout the whole region was82 Marcella Frangipane

a considerable development of the centralised economic different population groups living in or visiting the plain,and redistribution system essentially based, according to including transhumant pastoralists who were certainlythe archaeological evidence, on the control of the primary present in the Malatya area at the end of the 4th millenniumcommodities and labour. Here again, this management (Palumbi 2003; 2008; Frangipane and Palumbi 2007). Furthersystem had powerful ideological legitimation though at support to this interpretation comes from the iconographiesthe end of the period, together with an evident increase in of the more than two hundred seals that were used on thethe power of the central authorities, a greater economic, thousands of sealings found in the palace at Arslantepe.administrative and perhaps also political independence These iconographies are extremely varied and show thatfrom the religious and ceremonial sphere seems to appear widely differing traditions, styles and motifs were all usedin certain Upper Euphrates contexts. Evidence of this is the together, despite belonging in general to the northern glypticdevelopment of the so-called ‘palatial’ system at the end of tradition. This probably suggests that different sections of thethe 4th millennium at Arslantepe where public storerooms population, and perhaps also different ethnic groups with theirwith redistribution activities and a sophisticated system own economic and administrative identities, converged on theof administrative control over the centralised circulation palace to perform the activities managed there (Frangipaneof goods were architecturally and functionally separated et al. 2007, 475–477).from the religious ‘temple’ sphere, demonstrating that they Due to the lack of urbanisation, the production practiceswere distinctly autonomous in terms of their management of the people in the Malatya region did not substantially(Frangipane 1997; Frangipane et al. 2007). change with the establishment of a kind of early state power These were therefore societies dominated by political and management. Even though the villages would certainlyeconomic leaders, in some case very powerful, who were able have had to pay tribute and provide labour to the centralto wield authority over the staple economy of the population authorities, the way of life in the villages was probably notof the surrounding villages and concentrate the means of substantially affected. This, together with the likely pressureproduction and labour. Their wealth seems to consist mainly exerted by pastoralists, who were organising themselvesof staple products though it certainly also enabled them, as throughout the territory, and the parallel expansion ofit did in Mesopotamia, to finance other activities. the Transcaucasian groups, eventually brought the whole But the main difference between what were similar system down.centralised systems in the north and the south of Greater This collapse affected the whole of the Middle and UpperMesopotamia was their different capacity to sustain a fully Euphrates Valley, coinciding with the well documentedfledged urbanisation process (Algaze 2008). I believe that collapse of the Uruk system of relations. A similar collapseurban growth was accomplished only in the Khabour region did not, in my opinion, occur in the Khabour and eastern(Oates and Oates 1993; Wilkinson and Tucker 1995; Gibson Jezira where the urban structures seem to have undergone aet al. 2002; Oates 2002; Ur 2002; Oates et al. 2007) where re-organisational ‘crisis’ and in fact expanded further duringthe environmental conditions made it possible for a profitable the succeeding Ninevite 5 period (Schwartz 1994; Matthewsand expanding agriculture that could support a large urban 2003); nor did the political life and managerial system ofpopulation. Neither the Middle to Upper Euphrates or the central authority collapse there.Upper Tigris underwent any real process of urbanisation, The Middle and Upper Euphrates groups, who had livedeven during the 3rd millennium (Cooper 2006b). in areas where farmland was in less plentiful supply and The absence of urbanisation led to a less stable power where the economy was more mixed, were perhaps lesssystem, which remained more vertically dominated and deeply affected by the introduction of southern models ofprobably less radically linked to the stratified structure of a society and therefore basically kept their traditional clan/society in need of mediation and integration. The northern tribe-based structure, even when the system of economicelites probably remained rather detached from the people centralisation and redistribution became established in thewho, in the majority of regions except for the Khabour 4th millennium (Cooper 2006a; 2006b; Frangipane 2007b;area, seem to have continued to be basically rural and Peltenburg 2007, 11–18). Whereas the urbanised Ninevitepastoralist. society continued to develop, in the Euphrates regions the Once again, Arslantepe reflects this situation very well. economic centralisation system utterly disappeared, andIt became a powerful religious, political, administrative power took other forms of a more political-defensive type,and economic centre with a huge capacity for centralising more symbolically linked to a ‘warrior’ ideology. The wealthresources and labour, but it still retained the dimensions of of the dominant classes was now displayed in funerarythe previous period and indeed may have further reduced rituals and in an abundance of metal items and weaponrythem. There was no urbanisation, and we must therefore (Peltenburg 1999; Sertok and Ergeç 1999; Frangipane et al.presume that the vast numbers of people engaged in the 2001; Porter 2002; Schwartz et al. 2006), symbolical and‘palace’ activities were not resident there, apart from perhaps ideological aspects that were almost wholly absent from thea few of them. Rather they came from the villages and the cultures of Uruk inspiration. 10. Different models of power structuring at the rise of hierarchical societies in the Near East 83

1973; Warner 1994, 177–179) or in the citadel at Troy I

Western Anatolia: The Emergence of Paramount and II (Blegen et al. 1950; 1951; Korfmann 2006), but noPolitical Elites redistribution activities or economic transactions involvingA very different type of society and power structuring is mobilisation of staple products to finance these activitiesrecognisable in the early ‘urban’ societies of the Early were linked to them, at least judging from the availableBronze Age in western/central Anatolia. The first fully archaeological evidence. The storage places in centralsedentary communities based on an agricultural and live- building complexes seem to have simply been deposits ofstock economy occupying the southern region of central/ goods for the elites in the form of accumulation of wealth,western Anatolia in the Neolithic seem to have been cultural as in Troy II, or merely food supply in their residences,units with a limited geographical extension, characterised by as it seems was the case at Küllüoba (Efe 2003). The raremore or less agglutinated villages made up of fairly small cases of possible concentration of handicraft activities indwellings with distinctive ground plans in each sub-region. the places of power, as may be inferred by the numerousDomestic equipment was situated almost entirely within spindle-whorls found in the area of the Central Complexthe houses or in internal courtyards (central Anatolia) or at Karatas, probably indicate some sort of privilegeddirectly linked to the dwellings, adjacent to the external relationships of the craftsmen with the central elites ratherwalls (Lakes Region) as they were external projections than implying a centralised system of production. Theof the individual domestic units (Özdoğan and Başgelen development of handicraft must indeed have involved the2007). In the case of a village like Çatal Höyük, the open communities as a whole, as evidenced from the numerousspaces were exclusively internal yards belonging to groups workshops found in various settlements, such as Thermi,of houses arranged around them in a compact formation Poliochni and Küllüoba.(Mellaart 1967; Hodder 2006). Storage was domestic. Though there is therefore evidence to indicate formsBuildings were not found to have been used for collective of wealth accumulation by the elites, this wealth was notactivities, and no public places have been found where mobilised and regularly put into circulation as part of anauthority was exercised or rituals carried out on the part of economic interaction with the community. The lack of massthe whole community. The symbolic and ritual aspects were produced bowls is also interesting in this connection. Therescattered and entrusted to individual domestic units, with was also a lack of any very prominent central shrines withvarious expressions ranging from very common figurines which the whole community could identify and refer toto extraordinary mural paintings and plastic reliefs found in while evidence of cultic practices or forms of rituals, wheremany buildings at the site (Matthews 2002; Özdoğan 2002a, they are documented at all, refer only to domestic, or slightly257; Verhoeven 2002). larger, spheres, as was possibly the case at Beycesultan These villages appear to have been based on a solid Levels XVI–XIV (Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 36–55).egalitarianism, with each household unit exhibiting much The funerary customs exhibited a wide range of ritualsgreater economic independence than was the case in the (cist graves, pithos graves, inhumation, cremation, etc.),Neolithic societies of Jezira. However, the sense of the which were only partly regionally diversified and were notcommunity as a whole seems to have been stronger than in matched by significant differences in terms of the wealthsouthern Mesopotamia, as is suggested by the dense packing of the furnishings or the emphasising of social status.of the buildings in the settlements and the cohesive function of This diversity may have been linked to a variety of ethnicthe strict standards set in the household rituals and behaviours. and cultural components, which were probably related toUnfortunately, the data on the Chalcolithic period in these the similarly variegated picture in the Neolithic. Theseregions of Anatolia are still scarce though there is evidence communities seem to have been based on a clan structureof a possible continuous transition to the Early Chalcolithic that was not very stratified in terms of complex socialsociety in central Anatolia (Gérard 2002, 108–109). differentiation. A developmental link with this model of society can Socio-political elites and preeminent social figures,be recognised in the early hierarchical societies of 3rd however, certainly existed in the Early Bronze Age,millennium western Anatolia. Early Bronze settlements representing themselves and their right to exercise authority,in this region continued to remain quite small in terms of living in places that were kept separate from the rest of theMesopotamian urban standards, and the basic economic community, and manifesting themselves in the architecturalautonomy of the domestic units also seems to be evidenced form of fortified ‘citadels’ or upper towns built in thefrom the lack of any central storage of foodstuffs and any centre of the inhabited areas. This development can beevidence of regular administrative practices connected observed during the 3rd millennium at several sites, suchwith centralised control of the customary circulation of as Troy, Karatas, and Limantepe on the coast or Küllüobagoods (Özdoğan 2002b). Storerooms or concentrations of inland (Erkanal 1996; Efe 2003). In the most prominenthandicraft activities in the places of power may have existed of these places, the citadel of Troy II, there is evidence ofin the Central Complex of Karatas (Mellink 1966; 1972; concentrations of luxury objects, particularly those made of84 Marcella Frangipane

metal. The big boost given to metallurgy in these societies Their financial system was therefore based essentially on(Efe 2002) probably came from the incentives given to handicraft items and luxury goods, above all metals, andthese activities by the elites, who were the main purchasers their political role was probably linked to their ability toof these goods, and possibly also from the protection they guarantee access to the supply of raw materials in a weaklywere able to guarantee to trade routes. hierarchical society made up of small territorial units in a The fairly widespread use of fortifications and the basically mountainous environment. This type of societyfortified compact arrangement of some villages (e.g. did not evolve in an urban direction and did not exhibitKüllüoba early phase and Demircihüyük; see Korfmann features of the early state.1983) suggest an endemic conflict in these societies, which The historical outcomes of these two trajectories,appears to confirm the hypothesis that they were small units regardless of the many regional differences within eachtraditionally competing with each other, now perhaps mostly of them, were also very different, and it was only thealong the trade routes. These were therefore rather vertically expansionism of the later large empires that eliminated orstructured societies with groups exercising political power narrowed the differences.over the small communities and over quite limited territoriesbut which, perhaps through alliances, managed to protectand favour trade by activating a kind of ‘wealth finance’system whose features have been clearly described by ReferencesD’Altroy and Earle (1985). The spread of the so-called Adams, R. McC. 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago,‘Troy culture’ over a vast territory, which extended to the Aldine.south-east as far as Cilicia (Mellink 1989; Efe 2007) and Adams, R. McC. 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancientcontained clearly distinct yet closely correlated regional Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.units, fits very well with this model. Algaze, G. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (ed.) 1996. Tell Sabi Abyad: The LateConcluding Remarks Neolithic Settlement. 2 vols. Leiden, Nederlands Historisch- Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.In this attempt to emphasise the salient and distinguishing Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and K. Duistermaat 1996. Of storagefeatures of the early hierarchical societies in the Near East, and nomads: The sealings from the Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad.two main, contrasting models have emerged: Paléorient 22(2), 17–32. The first were the Mesopotamian-type societies, with Bernbeck, R. 1995. Lasting alliances and emerging competition:elites who centralised primary goods and labour, accumulated Economic developments in early Mesopotamia. Journal ofwealth in the form of staple products, and established a system Anthropological Archaeology 14, 1–25.of regular reinvestment in various activities by redistributing Blegen, C. W., J. L. Caskey and M. Rawson 1950. Troy I: Thethese staple products, or part of them, to increasingly broader First and Second Settlement. Princeton, Princeton Universitysections of the population in the form of remuneration for Press. Blegen, C. W., J. L. Caskey and M. Rawson 1951. Troy II: Thetheir labour. The centralised organisation in this case became Third, Fourth and Fifth Settlement. Princeton, Princetonalmost an ‘entrepreneurial’ system, creating a very close University Press.interdependency between all of its social components. The Breniquet, C. 1996. La disparition de la culture de Halaf. Paris,consequences of this system were (conditions permitting) Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.urbanisation, the emergence of sophisticated administrative Cooper, L. 2006a. The demise and regeneration of Bronzeprocedures, and bureaucracy. The origin of the elites and Age urban centers in the Euphrates Valley of Syria. In G.their privileges were usually deeply entrenched in the socio- M. Schwartz and J. J. Nichols (eds) After Collapse: Theeconomic system. It was this model that led to the birth of Regeneration of Complex Societies, 18–37. Tucson, Universitythe state. of Arizona Press. The second type was that of western Anatolian societies Cooper, L. 2006b. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. Newwith political/military type leaders who seem to have York and London, Routledge. D’Altroy, T. N. and T. K. Earle 1985. Staple finance, wealth financemanaged small territories and who were probably viewed and storage in the Inka political economy. Current Anthropologyideologically in terms of their role as the defenders and 26(2), 187–206.representatives of the community. Interference by these elites Efe, T. 2002. The interaction between cultural/political entitiesin the basic production system of the general population and metalworking in western Anatolia during the Chalcolithicappears to have been virtually non-existent, whereas elites and Early Bronze Ages. In Ünsal Yalçin (ed.) Anatolian Metalmay have played a very important role in protecting the II. Der Anschnitt 15, 49–65. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbau-trading routes for raw materials and in supporting craftsmen. Museum. 10. Different models of power structuring at the rise of hierarchical societies in the Near East 85

STATES OF HEGEMONY: EARLY FORMS OF POLITICAL CONTROL IN SYRIA DURING THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC

Lisa Cooper

Introduction parts of Syria, which are most frequently mentioned in the

The second half of the 3rd millennium BC saw the full tablets. While it is clear that Ebla received the allegiance ofadoption of urban settlements in Syria. Syrian cities grew many cities and their territories, especially during periodsto cover large areas, and they were accompanied by all the of warfare with other regional powers, or entered intocharacteristics of urban society. Particularly noteworthy for partnerships with other polities, it remains to be clarifiedthis period of urbanisation is the site of Ebla, located in just what form these allegiances or alliances took. Did thesewestern Syria. During the 3rd millennium BC, Ebla grew other polities become dependants of Ebla, relinquishing theirto around 56 ha, one of the largest cities in the region. It own economic and political autonomy to the Ebla king andalso acquired extensive territories around the city, which his high officials? Or did such polities simply recognise theincluded agricultural fields and grazing land for its thousands supremacy of Ebla, and while performing certain obligationsof sheep and goats. Excavations at Ebla revealed third for it, remain essentially independent?millennium occupation which featured a lower town and a Scholars who have used different and sometimes con-central high ‘acropolis’ upon which stood a magnificent and flicting terms to describe the nature of Ebla’s power havesprawling mud brick palace labelled ‘Palace G’. This was frustrated our understanding of Ebla’s power. Some refer tothe residence of the king of Ebla. By far the most important Ebla as a city-state while others prefer to call it a regionaldiscovery made in Palace G was that of archive rooms filled state or territorial state, thus laying emphasis on the widerwith thousands of cuneiform tablets which document the control it is perceived to have exerted over a wide areabusiness and political affairs of the Ebla kings and their (Michalowski 1985, 301; Archi 1992, 24; Milano 1995,palace officials over a period of about 50 years dating to 1221; Thuesen 2000, 59). At its most extreme, the termthe 24th century BC, just before the palace was violently ‘empire’ has been used. In this regard, Ebla is seen asdestroyed by fire (Archi and Biga 2003, 1). an ancient example of a Near Eastern superpower with Scholars of ancient Ebla have been struck by the number supremacy over a vast area, employing various mechanismsof other cities, towns and territories which are mentioned to subjugate and control subject territories (Matthiae 1977;in the Ebla tablets, and the Ebla kings’ efforts to enter into Astour 1989, 140).relationships with the people of those places, either through It is not our intention at this time to enter into a detailedtrade partnerships, political alliances or outright conquests. discussion of the uses of terms such as city-state, territorialFrom these tablets, it is clear that during its fluorescence, state and empire, although such a discussion may be fruitful,Ebla’s power was felt over an extremely large part of the and would allow Ebla to be brought as a comparativeNear East. case within the realm of current anthropological studies As wealthy and renowned as Ebla was during this period, which investigate the nature of different types of complexhowever, it has been difficult to understand precisely the societies throughout the Near East and the rest of the worldmechanisms by which it exerted its influence and supremacy (e.g. Trigger 2003; Yoffee 2005). For our purposes, we areover a wide region, and the extent to which it actually comfortable calling Ebla a state, or a nascent state, withoutcontrolled regions of the Near East, especially various specifying further what kind of state it was. But the focus88 Lisa Cooper

here is not what Ebla should be called, but what it did and tribute of silver and gold (Milano 1995, 1226). Despite thesehow it operated. We are particularly interested in examining payments and the abandonment of some of Ebla’s intereststhe nature of Ebla’s hegemony over other polities in Syria. in the Euphrates Valley, however, there is no indication thatA special focus shall be placed on the area of the Euphrates Mari interfered with the organisation and structure of theValley of Syria, in the eastern part of Ebla’s sphere of Ebla kingdom. Eventually, Mari’s strength weakened, andinfluence. The principal reason for exploring this region is after open hostilities with that state, Ebla was able to winthe available evidence, both in the form of the textual record back its control or the allegiance of many of the territoriesprovided by the Ebla tablets, as well as recent archaeological of the Middle Euphrates (Archi and Biga 2003, 13–26).investigations, which illuminate Ebla’s political and economic Although Ebla boasts of its defeat of Mari in battle, thisactivities in this region. The following therefore represents victory never included a political or economic takeover ofsuch an attempt to draw out information from these sources, territory in the heart of Mari’s kingdom.and to provide some provisional conclusions about the state The kingdom of Abarsal (for its suggested location, seeof Ebla’s hegemony. Archi 1989, 16–17; Astour 1992, 32–33; Archi and Biga 2003, 10; Bunnens 2007, 48–50) remained independent of direct Eblaite control although it found itself in frequent contact with that state and had to compromise some of itsTextual Sources from Ebla authority on the occasion of Ebla’s political supremacy. TheThe inscribed cuneiform tablets from Ebla provide a rich terms of Abarsal’s relationship to Ebla can be best seen insource of information about the economy, religion, kingship the so-called ‘Treaty of Abarsal’ drawn up at a time whenand political activities of Ebla over a short time during the Ebla was enjoying political ascendancy and considerable24th century when it was ruled by three kings (Archi and territorial expansion to the east (Archi and Biga 2003, 10).Biga 2003 provide the most up-to-date chronology of Ebla Although this is a treaty which formalises the relationshipkings). Of particular interest here are tablets which provide between two independent regional powers, it is clear frominformation about the territories and kingdoms to the east the tone and content of the treaty that Abarsal’s positionwith which Ebla had some type of relationship, be it an at this time was subordinate to Ebla (Astour 1989, 147).alliance with an independent regional power or a polity that Abarsal promised the smooth passage of merchants andit endeavoured to subordinate or control in some way. The messengers through its territory (Astour 1989, 147; 1992,tablets indicate that this eastern region included all of the 33; Bunnens 2007, 49). Moreover, while Ebla could sendterritories on either side of the Euphrates River along its its travelling merchants to Abarsal, Abarsal had no right toentire course as it runs through Syria. It also included some do the same with regard to Ebla (Astour 1989, 148).territories to the north of the Syro-Turkish border. From Despite these unequal terms, however, no text liststhe tablets, we shall summarise what we know about the Abarsal as being “in the hand” of the king of Ebla; thatnature of Ebla’s political relationship with these territories. is, Ebla never directly controlled it. Abarsal’s independentDid Ebla actually exercise some form of hegemony over relationship is also indicated in other parts of the treaty inthese regions, and if it did, what form of hegemony did which the territories belonging to Ebla are carefully listedthis take? alongside those which were separately governed by Abarsal According to the tablets, Ebla dealt with at least three (Archi 1989, 16; Milano 1995, 1227–28). Moreover, whencategories of polities. These are outlined as follows: we consider the actual quantities of tribute made by Abarsal to Ebla in the period of time after the date of treaty and after its initial payment of silver, we find that they were rather1. Polities ruled by kings (ens) that were insignificant (Astour 1989, 148). In fact, they are far lessindependent of Ebla numerous than the deliveries of gifts sent by Ebla to theThese kingdoms often rivalled the economic and political city of Abarsal (Archi 1989, 17). We suspect that Ebla wasstrength of Ebla. Some entered into wars with her, or desirous to maintain a friendly relationship with Abarsal,became formidable neighbours which Ebla strove to keep particularly given Ebla’s uneasy peace with its rival Mari,in check. The kingdom of Mari, located further down the which also had territorial ambitions in this part of northernEuphrates River, near the present Syro-Iraqi border, was Syria/southern Anatolia.one of Ebla’s greatest rivals. Like Ebla, Mari pushed into The Ebla tablets frequently mention the kingdom ofthe area of the Middle Euphrates Valley because of the Emar, which found itself in a close relationship with Ebla.economic opportunities it afforded, the result being that Emar, whose capital city is identified with Tell Meskene onthese two regional powers vied for supremacy in the region the western bank of the ‘great bend’ of the Euphrates Riverfor several decades during the 24th century BC (Archi and less than 100 km downstream from Carchemish, would haveBiga 2003, 2). A series of victories by Mari resulted for a been situated very close to the frontier between Ebla andtime in the kingdom of Ebla having to pay Mari a heavy Mari’s sphere of influence (Archi and Biga 2003, 10). 11. States of hegemony: Early forms of political control in Syria during the third millennium BC 89

While Ebla’s influence over the city and territory of

Emar was considerable, Emar was never under the directcontrol of Ebla and remained an independent polity withits own rulers (Archi 1990, 24). We know especially aboutthe queen whose name was Tisha-Lim (Archi 1990, 24;Astour 1992, 46). This queen was known to own real estate,mainly tilled fields in the area of several villages (Milanoand Rova 2000, 724 n. 22). Two royal decrees also reportthat Tisha-Lim purchased land in the regions around thetowns of IrPES and Gurrabal, known to be in the possessionof the Ebla king (Archi 1990, 25–26; Milano and Rova2000, 724, and 724 n. 21). In these decrees it is made clearthat Ebla recognised Tisha-Lim’s sovereignty over theseterritories and that it relinquished all rights of control overits citizens (Archi 1990, 26). This documentation testifies toa strong relationship between Ebla and Emar, and yet Emardoes appear to have remained politically and economicallyindependent of Ebla. Fig. 11.1 Map of Syria during the period of the Ebla Archives.2. Polities that fell under the indirect control of Excavated sites are accompanied by a dot. Postulated locations of polities mentioned in the Ebla tablets are indicated in italicEbla but were ruled by their own king (en) capitals (e.g. HADDU).These are polities which are listed in some way as beingunder the control of Ebla. They are often described, as inthe so-called ‘Treaty between Ebla and Abarsal’ as being “inthe hand” of the king of Ebla, indicating Ebla’s control over to have lost its independence at a certain point since thethem (Edzard 1992). These would have been independent occurrences of a king (en) of Hazuwan stop. The same alsoregional kingdoms before their subjugation by Ebla, with seems to hold true with Kablul, another former kingdomtheir own capital cities, towns, villages and territories. They with an en (Milano and Rova 2000, 730, including n. 50). Inwere all ruled by kings, or ens as they are defined in the Ebla both cases, it is conjectured that these polities were broughttexts. The following list provides some of the names of such under a more direct rule of Ebla.kingdoms, which appear to have existed in some location All of the kings of Ebla’s subject polities had toto the east and north-east of Ebla, on or near the Euphrates demonstrate their continuing loyalty by providing someRiver in Syria or Anatolia, and possibly as far east as the form of tribute to Ebla. Deliveries of tribute frequentlyBalikh River Valley. Their subject status to Ebla may have appear to have been made at the time of special events,arisen as a result of their location on trade routes of great such as when Ebla needed support for military expeditionsimportance to Ebla or their proximity to other important against its neighbouring foe, Mari (Archi and Biga 2003,regional powers such as Mari and Nagar, against which they 15). Tribute took several forms, which included quantitieswould have buffered Ebla. The kingdoms include Burman, of oil (Astour 1992, 31), various amounts of silver, gold,Gasur, Gudadanum, Haddu, Hazuwan, Kablul, Kakmium, and bronze; textiles, especially clothing items, livestock,NIrar and Ra’aq (for the posited locations of these polities, wine, as well as obligations such as providing soldiers forsee Fig. 11.1; Archi 1989, 16; Astour 1992, 27, 32–35; Milano Ebla’s military contingents or sending corvée workers to1995, 1227; Bonechi 1998, 226, 234; Milano and Rova 2000, Ebla (Astour 1989, 149; 1992, 33, 44–46; Milano and Rova722–730, 742; Archi and Biga 2003, 14, n. 44). 2000, 732–733). Although not overly large or burdensome, In most cases, after Ebla’s conquest of kingdoms ruled these tributes would have signified the kingdoms’ continuingby an en, the local kings were left to rule rather than be fidelity to Ebla and their acknowledgement of its politicalreplaced by an Ebla administrative official. In the absence supremacy.of any documentation to the contrary, they continued to Ebla reciprocated with its own delivery of ‘gifts’ to itsgovern their domains in much the same way as they had subject kingdoms as rewards for their continuing fidelity.before they fell under Ebla’s control. In a few instances, The Ebla archives possess numerous tablets which recordhowever, we learn that the power and authority of certain such deliveries of gifts to its allies, and we are left with thekingdoms were greatly reduced, and their former rulers impression that maintaining friendly relations with otherwere removed. Hazuwan, which formerly had a king and kingdoms was of extreme importance to Ebla, especiallywas listed alongside other prominent client kingdoms, seems near the border zone with Mari, with whom it was frequently90 Lisa Cooper

at war. It is perhaps significant that the subject kingdoms Archaeological Evidence for Ebla’s Presence andnamed above are often listed in the same deliveries which Hegemony in the Euphrates Valley of Syriaincluded kingdoms such as Emar, which are considered We are well informed about the antiquity of the area of thefully independent of Ebla (Archi and Biga 2003, 16, 19, Syrian Euphrates Valley between Emar in the south and22). Given this situation, we wonder if there really is as the Syro-Turkish border in the north due to the numberstrong a distinction between the two categories of Ebla’s of excavations carried out on ancient sites in the area,hegemony described above as we have made them out to particularly over the past 40 years. Excavations havebe in this study. revealed that the river valley was quite heavily populated during the 3rd millennium BC, particularly during the period3. Regions or former kingdoms that were under the when Ebla was a flourishing kingdom.direct control of Ebla The archaeological record for the Middle Euphrates Valley is very rich, and it is not our intention to dealThere are cities which are never reported as having been here with all of its details. Rather, we have selected onlyruled by their own king. Such is the case with Carchemish aspects of material culture which can possibly be linked toon the Euphrates River, located at the present Syro-Turkish Ebla’s presence, and we will try to examine the nature ofborder. Carchemish is mentioned in several Ebla documents, that presence, particularly as it pertains to some form ofand archaeological remains testify to its occupation during control or attempts at subordination by that polity. Onlythe second half of the 3rd millennium BC although the material evidence in the form of city defences, landscapesize of its settlement is still the source of heavy conjecture data pertaining to agricultural practices, public and private(Cooper 2006, 55–56; Peltenburg 2007, 16; Falsone and buildings, funerary remains, and small objects that can beSconzo 2007). In addition to deliveries of textiles to Ebla dated to approximately 2450–2300 BC, will be considered(Lacambre and Tunca 1999, 591) we also learn from the (Cooper 2006, 15–20).Abarsal treaty that Carchemish was “in the hand” of the king The following paragraphs list and discuss aspects ofof Ebla (Lacambre and Tunca 1999, 591; Bunnens 2007, 45). human activity and their material manifestations whichIt seems that for much of the period of the Ebla archives might be linked to the presence of Ebla in the MiddleCarchemish was politically dependent on Ebla and thus was Euphrates Valley, and which may point to that polity’snot allowed its own king (Bunnens 2007, 45). attempts to control or subordinate the populations of the IrPES and Gurrabal, two towns and accompanying region.territories in the vicinity of Emar (possibly to the west ofEmar, between the Giabuul Plain and the Euphrates; Milanoand Rova 2000, 724 n. 20), appear also to have fallen underthe direct control of the Ebla state since some of their lands 1. Military activities, manifested in garrisons forwere sold to the queen of Emar (Milano and Rova 2000, soldiers, outposts, and well fortified settlements724, including n. 21). It is also interesting that members of No structure has yet been positively identified as a militarythe Ebla aristocracy had estates and houses in these regions garrison for troops, nor has any evidence brought to light an(Astour 1992, 45; Milano and Rova 2000, 724 n. 21). installation that can be reconstructed as a military outpost or watchtower. There is ample evidence, however, for fortified settlements whose occupations can be dated approximatelySummary of Textual Evidence to the period of Ebla’s ascendancy in the 24th century BC.The Ebla tablets demonstrate that Ebla was engaged in a These settlements’ primary function was to house the localvariety of relationships with the territories of the Euphrates civilian populations of the Euphrates region. The settlementsValley of Syria that included: a) alliances with independent of Jerablus Tahtani, Tell ‘Abd, Tell Banat (with the Jebelkingdoms; b) semi-control over kingdoms that recognised Bazi citadel), Tell es-Sweyhat, Munbaqa, Tell Halawa A,Ebla’s supremacy and had to pay tribute; and c) direct Tell Habuba Kabira and Selenkahiye were all fortified duringownership and control over certain kingdoms and their this time (Heusch 1980, 174–75; Orthmann 1981, 9; 1989,territories. The nature of these relationships does not 18, 37; Eichler et al. 1984, 73; Machule et al. 1986, 81–3;appear to be dependent upon geographical distance from Finkbeiner 1994, 116; 1997, 100; Peltenburg et al. 1996, 8;Ebla. Indeed, some of Ebla’s direct possessions (e.g. irPES 2000, 71; Armstrong and Zettler 1997, 18; Peltenburg 1999a,and Gurrabal) appear in the vicinity of Emar, probably the 101; Van Loon 2001, 3.51 and 3.86–89; Otto 2006; Dantifurthest territory away from it. We suspect that these types and Zettler 2007, 177–78; ). Their defences often consistedof relationships, which occur in a kind of patchwork manner, of ramparts and glacis constructed on the exterior faces ofhad much to do with the strength of the other various polities the settlements, along with thick walls and towers.and their resistance or openness to entering into diplomacy The Euphrates fortifications may have been related inor exchanges with Ebla (Peltenburg 2007, 11). some way to the current political situation of the time 11. States of hegemony: Early forms of political control in Syria during the third millennium BC 91

in which large regional powers, notably Ebla, Mari and agriculturally productive regions of increased rainfall andpossibly Abarsal, were vying for control and fought several water runoff even as early as the 3rd millennium BC (Dantibattles over this region of Syria. Settlements which were 2000, 276). We wonder if this may be linked to the increasedcontrolled by or recognised the supremacy of one of these need for agricultural products on the part of Tell es-Sweyhatregional powers would have been particularly vulnerable to during the period of the supremacy of regional powers suchattacks. Further confirmation of the region’s vulnerability as Ebla when the settlement was faced with the additionalwithin the context of the Ebla/Mari hostilities might be burden of tribute, and had to extend its cultivation zonefound in the evidence from Jebel Bazi at the Tell Banat far out into the upland plateau to generate the surplus incomplex, where the gate building appears to have suffered agricultural products needed to fulfil this demand.some form of violent attack precisely around the time thatEbla experienced its sudden demise (Otto 2006, 11). Thedestruction of the Bazi citadel may have been carried out 3. Administrative activitiesby Mari (Otto 2006, 23). Eblaite administrative personnel could have been posted Although this is intriguing evidence, there is little to this frontier area of the Euphrates Valley in orderdemonstrable proof that the construction of any of the to assist with the collection of tribute from the localEuphrates fortifications can be linked to the initiatives inhabitants and to ensure peace and stability in the region.or sponsorship of one specific regional power such as Archaeologically, such a presence might take the form ofEbla or Mari. Moreover, while some of the fortifications’ buildings where official administrative activities could beconstruction may be approximately dated to the time carried out as well as the residences of foreign governors.of Ebla’s period of supremacy, still others were simply Such buildings were probably larger and more elaboraterefurbishments or the strengthening of existing constructions than domestic structures and may have featured non-localwhich go back much earlier in time. Thus, attacks, raids architectural styles which set them apart from the otherand/or warfare on Euphrates sites appear to have been an typical Euphrates-style buildings. These buildings mayendemic problem in this region and were not restricted to have contained exotic objects that linked them to a foreigna single time period. In light of this fact, it seems more presence such as Ebla.likely that many of these defensive projects were simply To date, only two large-scale secular buildings, whichpart of an initiative on the part of the local inhabitants of may have served as administrative centres that existedthe settlements, who were perpetually concerned about the during the period of the Ebla archives, have been exposeddefence of their own people and possessions. through archaeological excavations: Building 6 at Tell Banat (Porter 2002a, 27) and the Southern Mansion at Selenkahiye (Van Loon 2001, 3.37, fig. 3.7). Unfortunately,2. Tribute payments neither of the buildings, in terms of their architectural styleIn the case of the Euphrates Valley of Syria, tribute probably or their contents, points to Ebla in any significant way. Theconsisted of agricultural products, namely grain, which Southern Mansion at Selenkahiye did yield a large numberwas grown in abundance on the river terraces immediately of seal impressions, suggesting administrative or economicabove the Euphrates River, and sheep and goat products activities in the house, but these seals have parallels to thosesuch as wool, the result of pastoralist activities practised from all over the Near East, not simply Ebla (Mazzoni 1992,in the upland steppe above the river valley (Cooper 2006, 13–77; Van Loon 2001, 12.495). Such evidence points to36–41). Unfortunately, these products do not preserve well widespread connections, possibly through trade, but it doesover time, and archaeological evidence is slim. Nonetheless, not demonstrate any exclusive administrative or economicindirect evidence, in the form of landscape studies, may links to Ebla.be a way in which to document the nature and intensitywith which a given territory utilised its land for variousagricultural or pastoral activities. For the Euphrates Valley, 4. Elite emulationgeomorphological investigations combined with site survey Apart from the lack of demonstrable links between theand the mapping of off-site sherd scatters have been large-scale secular buildings at Tell Banat and Selenkahiyeundertaken in the area around the site of Tell es-Sweyaht and elite contexts at Ebla, no compelling connection can be(Danti 1997, 2000; Wilkinson 2004). They have revealed made between elite funerary remains from Euphrates sitesthat the upland steppe east of Sweyhat received a slightly and those from Ebla. Such elite graves principally take thehigher amount of rainfall per year, showing a potential for form of elite shaft and chamber tombs, distinguished by theiragriculture (Danti 1997, 85). Interestingly, a survey of the large size, their visibility and the quality of the materialsarea also led to the discovery of an ancient site (Tell Jedi) used to construct them (Thureau-Dangin and Dunandwhich had been occupied during the late Early Bronze 1936, 96; Peltenburg et al. 1995, 7–13; 1996, 13–14; 2000,Age. This evidence thus testifies to the utilisation of these 69–71; McClellan and Porter 1999, 109–110; Porter 2002a,92 Lisa Cooper

18–19). Parallels to these funerary monuments are hard to supposed re-conquest of this region after the wars withfind beyond the Euphrates Valley. These remains testify Mari, this supremacy did not translate to many visibleto regionally specific funerary traditions which included transformations in the region’s material culture. There isvery particular beliefs about the afterlife, the status and little evidence to indicate that Ebla had any concentratedsignificance of the individuals who were buried there, and or prolonged presence in the region, as evidenced by thethe importance of the living communities who continued to paucity of remains suggesting the implantation of militarymaintain and venerate these monuments (Peltenburg 1999b; or administrative personnel. The majority of EuphratesPorter 2002b). settlements and their local populations appear to have The luxury grave goods which accompanied the deceased remained essentially undisturbed by the chain of outsideindividuals of the monumental shaft and chamber tombs, events, although we do see attempts to increase theespecially at Tell Banat and Jerablus Tahtani, provide a settlements’ defensive capabilities, which could relate tosomewhat different picture. These valuable objects consisted the wars fought in this region between the superpowersof items such as decorated ostrich eggs, a limestone statue of Ebla and Mari. It is also possible that settlements hadwig, and a wide variety of beads, pendants, pommels, and to intensify their agricultural activities in order to produceplaques made out of ivory, shell, rock crystal, lapis lazuli, surplus goods destined as tribute for their overlords. Butsilver and gold (Peltenburg et al. 1995, 11–12; McClellan such activities do not appear to have economically crippledand Porter 1999, 110). Most tomb objects share similarities the local communities. Indeed, the second half of theto other goods found at a variety of sites throughout the third millennium BC, both during and after the period ofNear East, including distant Troy in Anatolia (Peltenburg Ebla’s fluorescence, appears as a prosperous time for theet al. 1995, 12; McClellan and Porter 1999, 110). Such far- populations of the Syrian Euphrates, when settlements grewflung contacts surely reflect the network of long-distance to their largest extent and were characterised by the mostexchanges that the people of the Euphrates sites were elaborate architectural embellishments and the acquisition ofengaged in at this time. Moreover, these grave goods, which valuable goods from around the Near East. If the Euphratesserved to enhance the prestige of the persons with whom Valley’s relationships with Ebla and other regional powersthey were associated, would seem to indicate an ideological did anything at this time, it was to broaden its links to theframework that was shared by elites from all over the Near wider Near East and all of the economic opportunities suchEast, not simply those from one city such as Ebla (McClellan an exposure afforded. These relationships also brought theand Porter 1999, 110). Euphrates region into the wider cultural network of the Near In conclusion, it is difficult to detect any instances of East where a number of social customs and their materialemulation on the part of the elites of the Euphrates Valley cultural manifestations were shared and copied, particularlyof Syria that can be related specifically to Ebla. While among elites.maintaining very distinct customs related to funerary beliefs If Ebla did have some kind of political hegemony over theand traditions, the ways in which elites sought to showcase Euphrates Valley, as many of the tablets appear to testify, thistheir status through various objects of adornment borrowed could be described as ‘hegemony without sovereignty’. Thisfrom a repertoire of elite behavioural customs and associated type of political strategy is best summarised by Kolata, whomaterial trappings that were known throughout the Near East along with other scholars has recognised this phenomenonduring this period of long-distance communications and elsewhere in the world, particularly in the context ofexchanges. Such evidence demonstrates that while various early states and empires (Berdan et al. 1996, 150; Triggerkingdoms may have been striving to bring other regions 2003, 113–119; Kolata 2006, 210–12). ‘Hegemony withunder their political control, some social customs and sovereignty’ entails the domination of populations withouttheir expressions in material culture transcended political actually administering them directly. Rather, power andboundaries. influence are exercised by the mere demonstration of military strength and cultural superiority. These demonstrations are thought to ensure the political and economic subordination of the subject populations without having to pay exorbitantConclusions costs of maintaining control through a constant militaryHaving presented the available textual and archaeological presence, administrative officials, or the colonisation of theevidence for the area of the Middle Euphrates, some subject territory (Kolata 2006, 210)conclusions can be made regarding the nature and intensity We suggest that this model may have been applicable toof Ebla’s hegemony over this region during the period of the situation of Ebla’s relationship to the Middle Euphratesits strength in the 24th century BC. Valley as outlined above. We hesitate, however, to use the Ebla’s hold over the Euphrates was loose and transitory. term ‘strategy’ to describe this type of political phenomenonWhile many of the tablets make the claim that Ebla as we wonder if Ebla engaged in any conscious or deliberateruled supreme over this region, particularly after its programme to enforce its supremacy over the Euphrates 11. States of hegemony: Early forms of political control in Syria during the third millennium BC 93

A HOUSEHOLD AFFAIR? POTTERY PRODUCTION

IN THE BURNT VILLAGE AT LATE NEOLITHIC TELL SABI ABYAD

Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

Professor Edgar Peltenburg’s outstanding record as an precise chronological synchronisations between key sites,archaeologist shows two recurring elements: his scholarly but also with regard to the assumptions underlying ourinterest in the social dynamics of technology and style in interpretations. In Upper Mesopotamia a major obstacleprehistoric societies; and his propensity for researching to understanding the organisation of prehistoric societiesa sunny Mediterranean island. However, he has also is the tendency to classify the evidence according to rigidexplored a prehistoric site at Jerablus Tahtani in the heart culture-historical frameworks as a basis for comparativeof Upper Mesopotamia. In this paper I shall investigate studies and reconstructions of long-term social evolution.the organisation of prehistoric pottery production in Upper Textbooks on Near Eastern prehistory are often organisedMesopotamia. I shall limit the discussion to one major in separate sections dealing with such entities as the Proto-key site for the Late Neolithic, Tell Sabi Abyad, situated Hassuna, the Hassuna, the Samarra, the Halaf and the Ubaidin the valley of the Balikh, a tributary of the Euphrates cultures. Recent fieldwork on the Late Neolithic showsin northern Syria. The history of the mound of Tell Sabi the inadequacies of the existing framework. Most of theAbyad is highly complex. I shall review one of the more elements traditionally ascribed to the ‘Halaf package’ canextensively excavated occupation levels at this site, Level now be traced back to the centuries preceding the Halaf6, which is located on the south-eastern slopes of the site’s period. In terms of the ceramics, it has been shown thatmain mound in what has been termed Operation 1 (for an what is seen as ‘Halaf pottery’ emerged gradually from a pre-overview, see Akkermans et al. 2006). Also known as the ceding Transitional (or Proto-Halaf) stage in which Hassuna“Burnt Village” because of the conflagration that reduced the and Samarra stylistic traits dominated (Campbell 1992,Level 6 village to ashes around 6000 BC (all dates in this 1998; Akkermans 1993, 1997; LeMière and Nieuwenhuysepaper are calibrated dates BC), this settlement was inhabited 1996; Cruells and Nieuwenhuyse 2005; Nieuwenhuyseat a time when communities across northern Syria, south- 2007).eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq had initiated far-reaching The Level 6 Burnt Village was inhabited at the start ofchanges in the way pottery was made and used. Not long the Transitional period between Pre-Halaf and Early Halaf.before the Burnt Village, at about 6200 BC, a long era of Rather than trying to pigeonhole this particular communityrigorously plain, coarsely finished ceramics had come to an into one culture-historical framework or the other, thisend with the introduction, initially in limited quantities, of paper explores the technological and social aspects ofpainted pottery vessels. Soon afterwards, between c. 6100 pottery production. What were the raw materials, toolsand 5900 BC, the ceramic assemblage changed rapidly and the technological knowledge needed, and how didand fundamentally, from being dominated by mostly plain, people procure them? Were ceramic vessels made locallyplant-tempered ceramics to mainly consisting of painted or were they imported from elsewhere? Is there evidenceFine Ware (Akkermans 1993; Nieuwenhuyse 2007). of pottery production within the village that archaeologists This discovery has sparked a lively debate, not just may identify as such?with regard to the details of the ceramic sequence or the98 Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

Models of Late Neolithic Ceramic Production scholars would accept that the Hassuna and Samarra stylesScholars have presented divergent views on how pottery reflect different subsistence adaptations and attendantproduction was organised in the Upper Mesopotamian Late social organisations. In this view, the Samarra potteryNeolithic. This heterogeneity reflects the different research style reflects socially more advanced organisations basedinterests of the scholars involved and their theoretical on irrigation agriculture along the two major river systemsbackgrounds as well as the diverse cultural mosaic during in Central Mesopotamia, the Euphrates and the Tigris. Inthe Late Neolithic. To a fair measure it also reflects the slow, contrast, groups in the north with the Hassuna pottery styleunequal development of research. Presently far more work continued to practise dry farming agriculture and did nothas been done on the later stages of the Pottery Neolithic, develop hierarchical social systems (Oates 1972; 1973;which are characterised by an array of attractively decorated Huot 1994; Breniquet 1996; Aurenche and Kozlowskipottery styles such as the Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf. In 1999). Whereas pottery production came into the handscontrast, much less is known about the earlier stages of the of specialists in the Samarra territories, Hassuna potteryPottery Neolithic, c. 6900–6200 BC, which have only most production continued to be practiced at the level of therecently emerged as major research foci in their own right. individual household. While the Samarra potters developed When it comes to the Halaf period, 5900–5300 BC, one a standardised set of complex design structures, designinfluential perspective was outlined by Watson and LeBlanc, structures in the north were kept much simpler and didwho suggested that the Halaf painted ‘luxury’ ceramics were not become standardised (Bernbeck 1994). The Hassunasymbols of prestige exchange between established elites, for groups imported the occasional high-quality vessel fromwhich they used the term ‘chiefdom’ (Watson and LeBlanc their Samarra neighbours and made cheapish imitationsn.d.; Watson 1983; Redman 1978). Watson and LeBlanc (Lloyd and Safar 1945). Mortensen (1970) argued that theused statistical measurements of similarity between painted stylistic differences between Hassuna and Samarra ceramicsmotif frequencies from a range of Halaf sites to infer patterns reflected different modes of production. Whereas the bulk ofof social interaction. Strong empirical support for the view the Hassuna pottery was felt to be made locally, Mortensenof Halaf ceramics as part of organised networks of exchange suggested that the most complexly decorated items werecame from work by Davidson and McKerrel (1976, 1980; made by travelling Samarran specialists (1970, 118–121).Davidson 1977). Using neutron activation analyses (NAA) This discussion has been strongly reinvigorated recentlyof Halaf sherds and local clays from a variety of sites and by the discovery in Syria and south-eastern Turkey of awadis in north-eastern Syria, they argued that a number of gradual sequence of ceramic change leading to the HalafHalafian sites had been ceramic production centres. These pottery tradition. This transition is characterised by a modestcentres supplied ‘satellite’ villages with ceramic vessels, and introduction and subsequent rapid increase of painted Fineat the same time they were engaged in the mutual exchange Ware made in what may be termed the Hassuna-Samarraof high-quality painted pottery. style if broadly applied (Campbell 1992, 1998; Akkermans This view of the Halaf was criticised from the 1980s 1993). During the Transitional period innovations in ceramiconwards with the rapid accumulation of new data from the technology, vessel shape, and decorative style led to whatfield. New fieldwork made it clear that in fact there was archaeologists have termed Early Halaf pottery (Cruells andprecious little evidence to suggest that Halaf societies had Nieuwenhuyse 2005). In other words, what archaeologistsbeen socially complex in the traditional sense of the word have treated as separate culture-historical entities can(Akkermans 1993). Apart from the presumed ‘prestige’ also be seen, in Upper Mesopotamia at least, as part of aceramics there were few unequivocally identifiable luxury continuum of ceramic innovation (Nieuwenhuyse 2007).goods, the spatial layout of villages did not immediately Presently, a lively debate focusses on what precisely shouldpoint to social differentiation, and the burial record sug- fall within the definitions of Samarra and Hassuna potterygested a heterogeneous yet non-hierarchical approach to (Bernbeck 2009), the identification of the technologicaldeath (Campbell 1992; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003). chaînes opératoires (operational sequences) underlying theAkkermans (1993, 319) concluded that the painted pottery various pottery groups (Van As et al. 1998; Nieuwenhuysewas not involved in the establishment of any sort of et al. 2001; Robert et al. 2009), and the issue of ceramicsocial hierarchy. Furthermore, Davidson and McKerrel’s exchange (LeMière and Picon 1987; 1999; LeMière andinterpretations were subjected to devastating criticism Picon 2009) among other points.by Galbraith and Roaf (2001). Re-evaluating the earlierdata with updated statistical methods, Galbraith and Roafconcluded that although ceramics were certainly exchanged Pottery Production in the Level 6 Burnt Villagein the Halaf period, the earlier NAA data do not support the The Level 6 Burnt Village has been excavated over an areaspecific model proposed by Davidson and McKerrel. of almost 1400 m2. It was constructed on the south-eastern As to the period immediately preceding the Halaf, most slopes of a much older mound that dates back to the early 12. A household affair? Pottery production in the Burnt Village at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad 99

Fig. 12.1 Plan of the Level 6 Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad (drawing by M. Kriek in Akkermans and Nieuwenhuyse forthcoming).

stages of the Pottery Neolithic (Akkermans et al. 2006). The It is important to note that although there is muchLevel 6 remains have been radiocarbon dated to c. 6000 BC. similarity from one multi-roomed building to the next,At this time the north-eastern part of Tell Sabi Abyad, too, the buildings were certainly not all equal in architecturalwas inhabited, but the western part of the mound appears composition or size. Intriguingly, some building complexesto have been empty. A dense concentration of large multi- were conspicuously larger than others. These may have beenroomed buildings was characteristic (Fig. 12.1). It has been the domiciles of households that in this particular episodepersuasively argued that these were used largely for storage of the village history were economically more successfulby a semi-pastoralist population (Akkermans and Duistermaat than others. Interestingly, although kilns of various shapes1997; Verhoeven 1999). Between 400 and 670 people may and sizes have been found dispersed through the Level 6have relied on the village, with perhaps some 120 people village, they are concentrated in two courtyards on either sideresiding there permanently (Verhoeven 1999, 211–213). of the largest complex in the village (Building II). Before100 Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

concluding that the inhabitants of this building controlled activities, festivities and the movements of people. In theessential pottery production facilities, we should note that highly seasonal climate of Upper Mesopotamia the cold,so far the distribution of small finds does not suggest a wet winter months would have been unfavourable for dryingclear differentiation (Verhoeven 1999). By and large, each pots and fuel. In the winter and spring, moreover, variouscomplex appears to have had a broadly similar inventory of agricultural activities would have laid claims upon thematerial goods prior to the conflagration. Tools and facilities available labour time. Within the semi-pastoralist economythat may have been used for the production of pottery are these seasons would have been socially intense as the largerdispersed widely throughout the Level 6 village and cannot be part of the community probably stayed within or close to theassociated with any building complex in particular. Nor does village. The summer would have been the likely time of thethe composition of the ceramic assemblage, although certainly year for ceramic production. A large part of the populationhighly variable from one building complex to another, suggest would have left the village with the herds. Those who stayedany patterns that we may interpret as reflecting unequal access behind would have engaged in ceramic production. Strawto specific pottery groups (Nieuwenhuyse 2007). left over from the harvest would have made convenient It may be difficult, perhaps impossible, at this stage to tempering material (Matson 1974; Akkermans 1993, 275–identify with certainty the tools that people used for pottery 279; Bernbeck 1994, 263; Eiland 2003, 337).production. Since the local production was probably carried Dramatic changes in vessel morphology occurred duringout largely at a household level and at a low intensity, the Transitional period. Interestingly, these do not seem tothe necessary tools may have been unspecialised to begin be associated with the invention of new shaping techniques.with (Peacock 1982; Van der Leeuw et al. 1987; Costin Vessels of all shapes and sizes seem to have been made1991). Production facilities, such as pits for clay storage with coiling, a technique known already since the firstor a covered space for drying vessels, may be virtually introduction of pottery around 6900 BC. Moulds wereindistinguishable from pits and storage rooms used for other most probably used for shaping convex bases as well as theactivities. No cache of unfired vessels waiting to be fired has sharply carinated profiles that became increasingly popularbeen recovered from the Burnt Village. So far it has not been during the Transitional period. First, the base was pressedpossible to locate any spatial clusters of artefacts that enable into the mould, after which the carinated body was built upthe identification of production facilities (Verhoeven 1999; with coils. The mould may simply have been the re-usedNieuwenhuyse 2007). How, then, do we know for certain base fragments of a discarded vessel (Van As and Jacobsthat ceramics were produced at Tell Sabi Abyad itself? 1989; Van As et al. 1998).Firstly, although such finds are very scarce, misfired and Abundant traces of sculpting, scraping, smoothing andwarped ceramic fragments are occasionally found. Secondly, burnishing point to a variety of surface-finishing techniques.the abundance of ceramic vessels throughout the settlement, Vessels were sometimes decorated with techniques suchtheir bulkiness, and their fragility in transport all argue for as stabbing, impressing or incising. The tools needed forlocal production. Finally, the microscopic and chemical this may have been fairly simple and need not have beenanalysis of ceramics and local clays strongly suggests that exclusively limited to pottery production. So far no use-a large part of it was made locally (LeMière 1989; Van As wear analyses have been carried out on the bone awls andet al. 1998; LeMière and Picon 2009). needles, the flint or obsidian tools, or the ceramic scrapers Most raw materials were locally available. Ethnographic and ‘loamers’ that occur in great numbers at the site. Itcomparisons suggest that the potters from Tell Sabi Abyad seems likely that in addition to a whole range of othercollected their clays within walking distance of the village possible functions some of these items were also employed(Arnold 1985). We shall never be able to locate the exact to modify ceramic vessels (Fig. 12.2). Non-industrial potterslocations, however, as several metres of sediment have in ethnographic settings have sometimes been shown to beaccumulated over the Late Neolithic field level (Wilkinson emotionally attached to the tools they use. These may have1996). Most of the samples of clay collected near the been transmitted over generations, and so they can acquirecurrent course of the Balikh River, close to the village, great social value (De Boer and Lathrap 1979; Dillinghamhave reasonable to excellent properties for making pottery. 1992). Pebbles with a glossy working surface are indeedThe main pigment for slipping and painting the vessels attested at Tell Sabi Abyad, but what they were used forwas ochre. Small pieces of ochre are regularly found in the remains to be established.Burnt Village, and some of the basalt tools show traces of A remarkable technological breakthrough at this timethe grinding of this pigment. Ochre, or iron-oxide haematite, was the development of firing strategies that increased thewas probably available on the limestone terraces of the potters’ control over temperatures and oxygen fluctuationsBalikh valley, which occur less than 10 km from the site in the kiln. This allowed them to produce dark-on-light(Akkermans 1993, 274). painted Fine Ware (Steinberg and Kamili 1984; Noll 1991; Ceramic production was in all probability seasonally Robert et al. 2009). Unfortunately, we are hard pressed toorganised and integrated within the broader annual cycle of identify the pottery kilns used by the Burnt Village potters. 12. A household affair? Pottery production in the Burnt Village at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad 101

Fig. 12.2 Left: Flint and obsidian tools from the Level 6 Burnt Village possibly used for pottery production (b, d). Scraping a fine clay(b, c) yields traces similar to those observed on Burnt Village Fine Ware sherds (a) (courtesy Loe Jacobs, Faculty of Archaeology, LeidenUniversity). Right: A large, circular, domed kiln from the Level 6 Burnt Village with an opening at ground level. The kiln was foundcompletely preserved, but the top was removed during the excavation (Marc Verhoeven as a scale, 1.81 m).

Characteristic for the later stages of the Transitional period, al. 2004; Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2004). It is most likely thatfor instance, is the keyhole-shaped kiln with a narrow, these coarse vessels were locally made and decorated witharched, combustion chamber and a domed heating chamber non-local pigments (Fig. 12. 3, nos 5–6).with stones on the floor, partly sunk into the ground to There is sound evidence for non-local pottery withinsave fuel. They are usually found with only the lower part the village even if the exact locations of origin remain tostill intact, however, and their function remains elusive. be established. Ongoing work by LeMière shows that partVerhoeven and Kranendonk (1996, 82) suggest that the of what is termed Standard Fine Ware (SFW) came fromsmaller examples were used for roasting meat, but the larger elsewhere. Two other Fine Ware groups, termed Orange Fineexamples may well have been used for firing pottery. A Ware (Fig. 12.3, nos 10–12) and Fine-Painted Ware, may alsosimilar potters’ kiln was reported from Tell Ziyada on the be of non-local origin (LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996;Khabur River (Buccellati et al. 1991). LeMière 2000; 2001). These two categories comprise only a Another type is larger, circular or sometimes oval with an very small minority within the assemblage, but their presenceopening in the wall at floor level (Fig. 12.2). These beehive- is significant. LeMière and Picon (2008) also suggest that theshaped kilns could be up to 3 m in diameter. The interior proportion of imported SFW may have been highest in thewas usually hard and red-burnt, suggesting that they reached early stages of the Transitional period. A regular exchangehigh temperatures. Elsewhere in Upper Mesopotamia, the of painted Fine Wares, then, was implicated in the ceramicfirst examples of circular kilns with a two storey construction developments observed during the Transitional period. SFWappear at this stage (Merpert and Munchaev 1993) in which bears close similarities to Hassuna and Samarra pottery froma perforated grid separated the lower firing chamber from the northern and central Iraq (Fig. 12.3, nos 13–20), but it wouldupper space holding the ceramic vessels. So far, no examples be too far-fetched at this stage to conclude that ‘Samarranof this type have been attested in the Burnt Village. impulses’ (Akkermans 1993) initiated the Transitional period. Although it is certainly possible that the occasional vessel travelled to the Burnt Village from as far away as central Mesopotamia, it is more likely that most of the exchange wasComing from Far Away conducted among the Transitional period villages that are nowCertainly not all pottery vessels in the Burnt Village being detected in survey work across upper Mesopotamiawere locally produced, nor were all raw materials local (Nieuwenhuyse 2000; Nieuwenhuyse and Wilkinson 2007;in origin. For instance, it was characteristic during the Erdalkıran 2008).Transitional period to decorate coarse plant-tempered vessels Perhaps the clearest case of non-local ceramics within theby scratching them with bitumen. Geochemical analysis of Burnt Village is the Dark Face Burnished Ware (DFBW),the pigment showed that it came from two distinct sources which includes about 4% of the assemblage (Fig. 12.3, nos 7–in northern Iraq, c. 500 km away from the site (Connan et 9). This heavily mineral-tempered ware is petrographically,102 Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

chemically and stylistically distinct from everything else References

at the site (LeMière and Picon 1987; 1999; Bader et al. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. 1993. Villages in the Steppe: Later1994; Nieuwenhuyse 2007; Diebold forthcoming). From its Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley,origin, probably within the south-eastern Turkish Zagros, Northern Syria. Ann Arbor, International Monographs init was widely distributed across the upper Mesopotamian Prehistory.plains. Both functional and socio-symbolic factors may Akkermans, P. M. M. G. 1997. Old and new perspectives on thehave stimulated demand. Functionally, this was excellent origins of the Halaf culture. In O. Rouault and M. Wäfler (eds)‘cooking ware’ in which vessels were repeatedly re-shaped La Djéziré et l’Euphrate syriens de la Protohistoire à la fin dufrom jars into hole-mouth pots (Fig. 12.3, no. 9). Much of the second millénaire av. J.-C., 55–68. Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.DFBW consisted of serving vessels; in the Burnt Village this Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and K. Duistermaat 1997. Of storage andpottery may have held the role of exotic serving-and-display nomads: The sealings of Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria.ware before the emergence of the painted Fine Wares. Paléorient 22(2), 17–44. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and O. P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds) forthcoming. Excavations at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad: Interim Report on the Archaeological Research (1994–1999) in the BalikhConcluding Remarks Valley, Syria. Turnhout, Brepols.The Burnt Village provides an intriguing case study of Akkermans, P. M. M. G., R. Cappers, C. Cavallo, O. P. Nieuwen-ceramic production and consumption in upper Mesopotamia huyse, B. Nilhamn and I. Otte 2006. Investigating the earlyat the close of the 7th millennium. Ceramic production and Pottery Neolithic of northern Syria: New evidence from Tell Sabiconsumption was far from a self-sufficient, localised affair. Abyad. American Journal of Archaeology 110(1), 123–156. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and G. M. Schwartz 2003. The Archaeo-Certainly, most of the vessels that circulated in the village logy of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Earlywere made locally by individual families that organised Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge, Cambridgetheir work at the household level. Direct evidence for local University Press.production is scarce at best, but this in itself fits well within Arnold, D. E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process.the expectations from generalised models of household Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.production. Pottery production facilities and tools that can Aurenche, O. and S. K. Kozlowski 1999. La Naissance dube identified are dispersed through the various buildings Néolithique au Proche-Orient. Paris, Éditions Errance.and open areas. There is little evidence to suggest ‘elite’ Bader, N. O., V. A. Bashilov, M. LeMière and M. Picon 1994.sponsorship of, or control over, production. At the same Productions locales et importations de céramique dans le Djebeltime, certain vital raw materials could only be gained through Sinjar au VIe millénaire. Paléorient 20(1), 61–68.exchange with other groups, and DFBW and some of the Bernbeck, R. 1994. Die Auflosung der häuslichen Produktionsweise. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer.Fine Ware came to the village from elsewhere. Alongside Bernbeck, R. 2008. Taming time and timing the tamed. In J. M.production systems aiming at the local community, some Córdoba, M. Molist, M. C. Perez, I. Rubio and S. Martinezceramic production will have been organised in a manner (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on themore akin to the household industry mode, involving several Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid 3–8 April,producing groups aiming at a larger range of regional or even 2006, 709–728. Isimu 10. Madrid, Universidad Autónoma desupra-regional consumers. Madrid. A dynamic, very active orientation to inter-regional Breniquet, C. 1996. La disparition de la culture de Halaf; les originesnetworks and relationships lay at the heart of Late Neolithic de la culture d’Obeid dans le Nord de la Mésopotamie. Paris,societies after c. 6200 BC. Communities such as the Burnt Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.Village participated in supra-regional networks of exchange Buccellati, G., D. Buia and S. Reimer 1991. Tell Ziyada: Thein which various goods and ideas circulated over huge first three seasons of excavation (1988–1990). Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 21, 31–61.distances. Approaches to painted pottery styles in the upper Campbell, S. 1992. Culture, Chronology and Change in the LaterMesopotamian Late Neolithic have sometimes tended to Neolithic of North Mesopotamia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,promote a view of material culture as essentially reflecting University of Edinburgh.given life-ways or regional identities. At Sabi Abyad, Campbell, S. 1998. Problems of definition: The origins of the Halafhowever, much ceramic innovation observed during the in north Iraq. In M. Lebeau (ed.) About Subartu: Studies DevotedTransitional period centred upon elaborately painted Fine to Upper Mesopotamia, 39–52. Subartu 4. Turnhout, Brepols.Ware: vessels excellently suitable for social display within Connan, J., O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, A. van As and L. Jacobs 2004.the context of serving food and drink. Pottery styles in Bitumen in early ceramic art: Bitumen-painted ceramics fromthe Burnt Village were actively involved in creating and Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad (Syria). Archaeometry 46(1),maintaining social identities. 115–124. Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. In104 Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

LATE CYPRIOT CERAMIC PRODUCTION:

HETERARCHY OR HIERARCHY?

Louise Steel

There have been various technological studies of Cypriot better firing techniques and more effective control ofpottery (most recently Åström 2001; Karageorghis 2001; reducing/oxidising conditions (Arnold 1985, 123). RecentCrewe 2004; 2007; Knappett and Kilikoglou 2007); however, approaches, however, have questioned the automaticthe organisation of LC pottery production has received less association between the development of complex socio-attention (but see Keswani 1991). This article examines political structures and technological advance (Loney 2000)changing pottery production during the LBA. It is proposed and relate specialised production to heterarchical socialthat prior to the 13th century BC there was considerable organisation rather than centralised economic control withinvariation in pottery production, and only in the 13th and a vertical hierarchy (Schoep and Knappett 2004, 26–27).12th centuries did ceramic production cut across regional The adoption of new technologies is voluntary, and peopleboundaries, a corollary of increasing urbanisation and may choose to do so for a variety of reasons which need notcentralised control (all dates in this paper are cal BC). be predictable or ‘rational’ (Loney 2000). Pottery production is essentially conservative. Potters are reluctant to change their technological base, and once they have identified suitable clays, tempers and fuels, and suitable modes ofPottery Production and Social Complexity production, they continue to exploit these with little internalVarious archaeological studies have sought to explain impetus for change (Rice 1984, 243–244; 1987, 461–465).changes in pottery production within an evolutionary Arnold (1985, 205–206) notes that the manufacture ofparadigm (Peacock 1977; Rice 1981; Underhill 1991; Loney pottery involves mastering a considerable number of motor2000). Changes are viewed as evidence for technological habits; this is a long process and the skills involved are moreimprovement and the rise of complex societies. Consequently, easily acquired during childhood. Indeed, the motor habitsthere is a tendency to relate increasing specialisation of of a particular mode of production (hand-built, mould-made,pottery production to increasing social complexity (Rice wheelmade) are so deeply ingrained (Arnold 1985, 206) that1981). In an ethnoarchaeological study Peacock (1982) they may act as significant barriers to change (1985, 221).proposed various modes of production related to different Arnold also observes that cultural attitudes and beliefs mightstages of social complexity: small-scale, village-based impede transmission of new styles, forms and decorationsocieties were typified by domestic household production, (1985, 223). Hence, changes in pottery production indicatewhereas highly standardised mass production within significant cultural transformations that need not necessarilyspecialist workshops was characteristic of social complexity be related to increasing complexity in social organisation.and urbanised societies (part-time specialisation withinchiefdoms and full-time specialisation in states; see Underhill1991). The development of a wheelmade technology in Late Cypriot Social Organisationparticular is associated with economic specialisation and During the 2nd millennium BC, Cyprus underwent amass production within an urban context (Arnold 1985, number of socio-economic and demographic transformations206–208; Crewe 2007, 209). Other developments include associated with an increase in population and greater 13. Late Cypriot ceramic production: Heterarchy or hierarchy? 107

Fig. 13.1 Map of LBA sites.

participation within East Mediterranean trade networks (see external distribution of copper. Certainly, a number ofFig. 13.1 for map of principal sites). The transitional MC possible signifiers of social complexity can be identified atIII–LC I period was a time of social upheaval (Merrillees Enkomi in LC IB: a monumental building serving a number1971) typified by the abandonment of settlements and a of economic functions (the fortress); Cypro-Minoan tablets;destruction horizon. Coupled with these changes is evidence local seal production; and wheelmade pottery.for the emergence of new social elites, who identified The island’s topography, dominated by the vast Troodosthemselves through elaborate funerary ritual (Keswani mountain range that was largely impassable and unexploited2004, 80). in antiquity, impeded inter-regional communication Present understanding of LC settlement is based on a (Peltenburg 1991, 107) and presumably the establishmenttripartite model developed by Catling (1962, 142–143; see of a unified LC state. Instead, a series of regional politiesalso Keswani 1993; 1996; Knapp 1997; 2008), comprising might be postulated similar to the Iron Age city kingdomslarge coastal towns and small rural and mining settlements (Iacovou and Michaelides 1999). In fact, there is very littlein the hinterland. By the 14th century the towns were evidence for a hierarchically organised state on Cyprusthe dominant economic and political force within the during the LBA (Smith 1994; Keswani 1996, 234). Instead,surrounding landscape. Despite the rich archaeological socio-political organisation can best be characterised as arecord, our understanding of the political organisation series of complex chiefdoms, demonstrating no more thanof LBA Cyprus is limited. We might posit some form of two levels of control (Smith 1994, 33–36). Moreover, thecentralised administration located within the urban centres; notion of the state itself is problematic (Knappett 1999,nonetheless, it is problematic trying to interpret socio-political 616, 618–619; Adams 2006, 1–2), especially the inherentorganisation within conventional, anthropologically derived socio-evolutionary perspective and the overriding focusmodels. Peltenburg (1996) has argued for the emergence on economic and political organisation within the urbanof a state on Cyprus prior to LC II, possibly centred on context at the expense of regional level analysis. Certainly,Enkomi, and associated with increasing exploitation and the LC material does not fit the model of a territorial state,108 Louise Steel

based on a hierarchical network of administrative units continued to be village-based, perhaps as a small-scale

over a wide region, and under the control of a single ruler. household industry (Crewe 2007, 216, 227). However,Instead, the smaller polity of a city state, based on an urban there is significant evidence for pottery production withincore and hinterland, appears more attractive (Trigger 2003, specialist workshops, suggesting the co-existence of at92–119). Another possible model is the ‘village-state’, which least two modes of production in LC I (Underhill 1991,is based on kinship linearity, a redistributive economy 13; Loney 2000, 651). The clearest evidence for a potteryand ceremonial enactment (Maisels 1990). Whatever the workshop is at Morphou-Toumba tou Skourou (Vermeulesocio-political organisation of LBA Cyprus, the process of and Wolsky 1990); this undoubtedly relates to specialisedurbanisation implies increasing social complexity and as a production discussed by Peacock (1982, 9, 25–26; Underhillcorollary has important implications for the organisation 1991, 14, table 2). The excavators suggest that the localof craft production, including pottery (Griffin 1965, 104, elite controlled production (Vermeule and Wolsky 1990,113; Sahlins 1972, 101; Rice 1981; Feinman et al. 1984, 101); however, rather than imposing a hierarchical model297–302, 322). of control, we might explore horizontal differentiation in economic specialisation similar to that proposed for Proto- palatial Crete (Schoep and Knappett 2004, 26–27). TheLate Cypriot Ceramic Production wholesale transformation of the pottery tradition reflectsCHANGES DURING THE TRANSITIONAL MC III–LC I PERIOD choices made by the LC potters and throws light upon theirThe advent of the LC period is marked by the appearance technological advances. The potters chose to exploit newof new wares, White Slip (WS), Base Ring (BR), and clay beds in the copper-rich Troodos region (Courtois 1977),Monochrome (Merrillees 1971), replacing the traditional the wheel/turntable was used for certain elements (CreweRed Polished pottery used for some 500 years. The adoption 2004; 2007), and increased firing temperatures suggest aof these new wares occurred at a varying pace in different kiln-based technology. An experimental phase with newparts of the island (Merrillees 1971; Manning 2001, 81; clay beds and firing technologies is evident in the variableCrewe 2007, 214), reflecting the persistence of strong finish of Proto WS (Cadogan et al. 2001, 80–81); similarregional identities against a backdrop of dramatic social experimentation is documented at Episkopi-Phaneromenichange. Two distinct ceramic traditions emerged from the with Drab Polished, Proto BR and BR I wares (Herschereast-west cultural split in the island: the canonical LC wares 2001, 18).developed in the northwest of the island while the traditional Specialist potters became increasingly proficient withMC tradition survived in the east. Although the eastern these new technologies throughout LC I, resulting inpottery tradition appears archaising, new styles developed further changes to their product. Greater control over thehere (Bichrome, Red on Black and Red on Red); however, kiln allowed the WS potters to achieve temperatures ofthese did not have a lasting impact. The initial use of the 1100˚ centigrade; ironically, however, their improved skillLC wares was closely associated with ceremonial practices; ultimately resulted in an apparent decline in quality. Thethe new wares were predominantly used in tombs in the creamy-white smectitic slip used for WS I had a tendencyMorphou region but were only gradually adopted in the to blister at this higher temperature and was replaced bysurrounding settlements (Merrillees 1971, 57). A similar a micaceous chloritic clay that gave a duller finish to thesituation is apparent in the east; at Enkomi, for example, the ware (Aloupi et al. 2001, 23). The higher temperaturesnew styles were primarily used as grave goods throughout also resulted in reducing conditions, and the characteristicLC I and were only adopted within household contexts in WS I bichrome decoration (achieved by the use of anLC II (Crewe 2007, 214). oxidised iron-based red and a manganese-based brown/black Alongside the new wares, traditional vessels were also pigment) fell out of favour (Aloupi et al. 2001, 18). Thustransformed. Most striking is the preference for flat bases the changes observed in the surface treatment of WS I andand ring bases for jugs and jars although the traditional II are intrinsically linked to the advancement of technologyround-based jug persisted into LC I. This undoubtedly and not necessarily to the tastes or choices of consumers.reflects changing household practices relating to the use Certain developments reflect foreign influence at a timeand storage of these vessels (Crewe 2007, 227–228). Shapes when the island was increasingly involved in overseassuch as the krater reflect Levantine influence (Amiran 1970, trade. Chief amongst these is the adoption of the wheel in99–101) and illustrate the adoption of exotic new social eastern Cyprus. Masson explicitly links the introductioncustoms related to feasting (Crewe 2007, 228). The Plain of the wheel to the settlement of Levantine artisans (1976,White handmade storage jars attested in eastern Cyprus 152–153). The development of the Bichrome Wheelmade(Pilides 1996, 108) demonstrate the adoption of new storage and Red Lustrous Wheelmade wares has been attributed tostrategies at a time when the organisation of the household influence from Anatolia and Syria (Åström 2001, 134–135;was undergoing significant change (Bolger 2003, 32–36). Karageorghis 2001, 145–148, 153) while certain decorative Regional variation might indicate that pottery production aspects of Bichrome Wheelmade may have been adopted 13. Late Cypriot ceramic production: Heterarchy or hierarchy? 109

from the Cyclades (Artzy 2001, 163–166). The consensus LC IIIA (Hadjisavvas 1991, fig. 17, nos 1–2, 4–5), perhapsis that wheelmade pottery developed in Cyprus within a reflecting further changes in food processing techniques andclimate of foreign contact and exchange of ideas; however, diet. The new wares were initially appropriated in funerarythe mode of transmission is unclear (Crewe 2007, 225–226). (Merrillees 1971, 57; Crewe 2007, 214) and religiousEthnographic studies indicate that new potters are more contexts (al-Radi 1983). This would suggest that the newlikely to adopt the practices of the communities into which styles were specifically related to innovations in ceremonialthey moved in response to different resources and local practices used to renegotiate and reaffirm social relationsdemand, rather than impose new techniques on the resident at a time of social upheaval. Ethnographic studies supportpopulation (Rice 1984, 245). The transfer of technological the notion that transformations in ceremonial behaviour,skills, in fact, is very difficult to achieve (Loney 2000, especially when associated with changing fortunes of elite649), and the very different motor habits used to produce groups, will impact upon pottery production (Rice 1984,handmade and wheelmade pottery represent a major obstacle 246, 252); moreover, the process of urbanisation, whileto the transmission of expertise (Arnold 1985, 221), perhaps poorly understood, is probably the key to understandingexplaining why these wares had limited impact on Cypriot many changes in pottery manufacture (1984, 248–249) andproduction. seems particularly pertinent in the MC–LC period. The changes apparent in the LC I ceramic tradition aresocially and culturally significant. These effectively constitute LC II: CERAMIC REGIONALISMthe disappearance of an ancient tradition that had persisted on By LC II a common ceramic tradition was establishedthe island for some 500 years. At one level the development throughout Cyprus (Fig. 13.3) “although subtle distinctions inof new wares illustrates the adoption of new technologies, style can still be detected” (Herscher 1984, 27). Despite thenew modes of manufacture, and the exploitation of new apparent standardisation there is some evidence for continuedresources, reflecting shifting relations with the physical and regional variation, which has important implications fortechnological environment (Binford 1962, 219; Rice 1984, understanding the organisation of pottery production and252). The exploitation of new materials implies interruption inter-regional exchange. One issue is whether potteryto the procurement of the preferred MC resources, perhaps a production was centralised and controlled by the urbanresult of demographic shift. Potters needed to seek out new elite or if small-scale production within village workshopsresources, the properties of which they were not familiar persisted (Knapp and Cherry 1994, 8, 159–161). No potters’with, and thus had to develop new skills (Courtois 1977; quarters have been identified in the main urban centres, butRice 1984, 244; Vaughan 1991, 119; 1994, 91). Increasing regional workshops have been identified at Athienou (Dothanpopulation likewise had a significant impact on pottery and Ben-Tor 1983) and Sanidha (Todd and Hadjicosti 1991;production. Production by household specialists was probably Todd and Pilides 1993; 2001). Following a detailed studyno longer sufficient to meet the demand of a larger, urban- of Plain White pottery, Keswani posits a workshop centredbased population (Rice 1984, 244–245, 257). Accordingly, at Enkomi, which not only supplied the town but also otherCypriot potters developed new strategies to cope with greater communities in eastern Cyprus, and possibly even thedemand. Thus population stress and urbanisation were the residents of Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios (Keswani 1999).impetus for the move away from domestic production or However, the mechanisms by which the products of thesehousehold industries to full-scale ceramic production at workshops were disseminated throughout the island arespecialised centres (Feinman et al. 1984, 302). unclear. While there is an “absence of any apparent palatial Nonetheless, this was not simply an economic trans- system of centralised production and distribution of goods”formation; the underlying cultural changes are equally (Vaughan 1994, 91), large monumental buildings, which hadsignificant (Crewe 2007, 225). Material culture expresses the an economic, redistributive role, are attested at several urbanarticulation of social groups (Binford 1962, 219; Wiessner centres. These may well have regulated an exchange network1983; 1985; Rice 1984, 252), and the adoption of new forms for the products of regional workshops, including potteryand decorative styles reveals changing social practices. The (Keswani 1993; Knapp and Cherry 1994, 159–161).choice, preparation and consumption of food and drink are At first glance the WS II style (Fig. 13.2) appears to bedeeply embedded in cultural traditions; hence the utensils uniform throughout the island. The ubiquitous form wasneeded for these practices might be particularly resistant the hemispherical bowl with wishbone handle, decorated into change (Rice 1984, 245; 1987, 463). Consequently, the Normal Style; nonetheless, “subtle distinctions in stylethe introduction of new pottery forms in LC I may mirror … can still be detected” (Herscher 1984, 27; Table 13.1).new social practices linked to changing diet. Subtle The diversity of WS forms attested in the Kalavasos/Maronitransformations continue throughout the LC period, such as region is unparalleled on the island (Fig. 13.2, no. 5; Russellthe disappearance of the spout after LC IIB (Fig. 13.2, no. 1989; South and Steel 2001, fig. 3) and perhaps reflects2; Lagarce and Lagarce 1985, fig. 17, no. 68; South et al. proximity to workshops located in the southern foothills of1989, fig. 52) and the introduction of the strainer spout in the Troodos. Particularly noteworthy is the preference in LC110 Louise Steel

IIA for drinking sets typically decorated in the Transitional this is further reiterated by chemical analyses (Artzy et al.WS II style (Steel 1998, 290). Other regional variants include 1981; Knapp and Cherry 1994, 57–59). The proximity ofWS IIA (Popham 1972, 446–447, fig. 51), found primarily the probable production centres (Kouklia, Kourion, andin south-west and occasionally in south-central Cyprus. Kalavasos) to the Troodos massif where basaltic claysClosely related is the distinctive Parallel Line Style (Popham compatible with the WS fabric are found (Courtois 1977;1972, fig. 56, no. 4; Russell 1989, 2–3, figs 3–4). Only small Courtois and Velde 1989, 74; Knapp and Cherry 1994, 59)quantities have been identified in north-west and eastern suggests that the main WS workshops were located in theCyprus (Catling 1957, fig. 19, no. 182; Dikaios 1969, pl. hinterland of these urban sites, perhaps controlled by the63, nos 10, 12, 17, 25; pl. 76, no. 31); however, it comprises urban elites. There was widespread demand for WS both inaround one-third of the WS recovered at Kalavasos-Ayios Cyprus and the Levant, indicative of an efficient distributionDhimitrios, perhaps suggesting local production (Russell system possibly instituted by the polities of the south and1989, 3). The distribution of these styles clearly points to west of the island.multiple production centres (Knapp and Cherry 1994, 57); “The technical ceramic standards manifested by a 13. Late Cypriot ceramic production: Heterarchy or hierarchy? 111

significant quantity of Base Ring Ware represented a 13th century, contemporary with the floruit of the urbanremarkable achievement by potters” (Vaughan 1994, 86), centres.displaying confident use of a very plastic clay to hand build LC IIC pottery corresponds well with a model of massthin-walled vessels fired at high temperatures (Vaughan 1991; production. In contrast to the varied forms current in LC1994). There is some evidence for double firing (Vaughan I–IIB, by LC IIC both WS and BR were characterised by1991, 122); this entailed greater investment in time and effort a limited and standardised morphology (Steel 1998, 292)and increased risk in the firing process. Paradoxically, the and display considerable uniformity. WS production wasprogressive technical achievements of the BR potters resulted restricted to hemispherical bowls and Base Ring to carinatedin an apparent decline in the ware’s finish: the lustrous BR I cups. Alongside this there was increasing standardisation invessels formed from fine-grained pastes were supplanted by the decoration of the WS bowls: the subsidiary cross-hatchedvessels made from a coarse-grained paste and with a matte lozenges, hooked lozenges, and rows of dots characteristic ofsurface finish. Alongside this, the range of forms contracted the ware in LC IIA–B disappeared (Fig. 13.2, no. 1); insteadto the small juglet and the Y-shaped carinated cup (Fig. the bowls were more simply decorated with the ladder pattern13.3). These changes, especially the homogeneous profile (Fig. 13.2, no. 3), suggesting articles decorated rapidly onof the ware, are suggestive of increasing standardisation and a turntable. The end result is exemplified by the seeminglycentralisation of production, and as a corollary an extensive hasty banded decoration of WS II Late bowls (Fig. 13.2,and efficient distribution network (Vaughan 1994, 86). no. 4; Table 13.1; Popham 1972, 456, fig. 57; Russell 1989,Petrographic analysis reveals three distinct regional groups, 3, figs 3, 6; South and Steel 2001, fig. 5). The apparentrepresenting overlapping areas of manufacture (Vaughan decline in surface treatment is paralleled by the later BR1987; 1991; 1994). It is not clear, however, how the BR products; while the earlier BR I forms were burnished orpotters achieved such homogeneity. Possibly, itinerant potters polished, the later products of the workshops were eitherworked between these regions, carefully selecting suitable simply smoothed, wiped and left unslipped or were dippedlocal clay sources. BR evidently was deemed highly desirable in a matte slip (Vaughan 1991, 124, table 12.2). Ultimately,and was prescribed for certain cultural activities, most notably the traditional BR workshops could not withstand the forcesin the religious sanctuaries where the carinated cups were of mass production. Despite continuing demand it could notused for liquid libations (Vaughan 1991, 124). These cups be met by hand-made production. Instead, potters began towere so intrinsically linked to LC religious practices that experiment with a less plastic clay with large inclusions,even after BR production had ceased in the 12th century the which was more suitable to being thrown on the wheel,form was still being made in plain ware (Courtois 1971, fig. the result being mass-produced wheel-made imitations of94; Jones and Catling 1986, 595). the carinated cup attested at Enkomi and Kouklia (Courtois Current evidence therefore supports highly skilled potters 1971, fig. 94; Jones and Catling 1986, 595). By c. 1100 BCworking within regional workshops during LC II rather Bucchero (a derivative of BR) was being made from a palethan production at the level of a household industry. There firing, less plastic paste, which was covered by a dark slipis no indication that urban elites controlled production. to achieve the appearance of BR, the final “abandonment ofInstead a heterarchical system of production might be the specialised skills of the traditional Cypriot potters” afterposited, effectively comprising small groups of independent some 400 years (Vaughan 1994, 92).workshops. Nonetheless, the distribution of the wares The Aegeanising WPWM III (Fig 13.4) pottery furtherimplies efficient supply networks throughout the island; it illustrates centralised, mass production of pottery within theis possible that the urban elites controlled the circulation urban environment (Sherratt 1991, 191). Chemical analysesof these wares between the production centres and their suggest several production centres at Enkomi, Kition andeconomic hinterland. Kouklia (Jones and Catling 1986, 606). This ware mimicked the Mycenaean imports popular in Cyprus throughoutLATE CYPRIOT IIC: MASS PRODUCTION AND STANDARDISATION the LC II period although only a limited range of shapesScale and competition have been identified as two critical were produced. These largely comprise kraters and bowlsfactors which influence pottery production (Feinman et al. (Sherratt 1991, 192), which were easily formed on the wheel1984, 300). A smaller number of large workshops, mass- and decorated on turntables, the ultimate rapidly producedproducing standardised pottery, flourish within central- ceramic product. Likewise, Cypriot potters were unableised, politically controlled economies; alongside greater to reproduce the fine lustre of the surface slip and paintedstandardisation less effort is expended in decoration (Rice decoration that was typical of the Mycenaean imports, and1981; Feinman et al. 1984, 299–302). Although the LC the decoration was highly standardised and formulaic. By“data are not sufficiently fine-grained to determine whether the time of the Bronze-Iron Age transition (LC IIIB–CG I)centralised production increased through time” (Knapp and wheelmade decorated pottery was being mass produced onCherry 1994, 161), the technical and morphological evidence a large scale and a homogeneous, island-wide ceramic stylesupport increasing uniformity of pottery production by the was established (Steel 1994). 13. Late Cypriot ceramic production: Heterarchy or hierarchy? 113

Conclusions where I was lucky to experience Eddie’s guidance in the

The changing dynamics of LC pottery production are fields of Cypriot and Near Eastern archaeology. An earlyassociated with demographic and sociopolitical changes. version of this paper was prepared during this period andThe technical advances apparent in LC I indicate increasing accepted for publication in a special volume of BASOR inspecialisation of production and the establishment of regional 1998. I am grateful to Eddie for his comments on the earlyworkshops, producing goods for internal consumption and drafts. Unfortunately, this publication was not to see fruition.external trade. By LC II there was an effective distribution A revised version of the paper was accepted for publicationsystem circulating pottery throughout the island. Possibly in 2000 in Embedded Technologies, but again the publicationdistribution was centrally controlled, but throughout most process was interrupted. It is a pleasure now to be able toof the LC period the evidence points to a heterarchical revise the paper in the light of recent developments in Lateproduction and distribution system. By the 13th century, Cypriot ceramics, and to offer it in appreciation of Eddie’showever, there is considerable evidence for increasing significant contribution to Cypriot archaeology. Thanks arestandardisation and specialisation typical of mass production. due to the anonymous reviewer for comments and to SteveThis process peaks in LC IIIA, marking the final stage in Thomas (University of Wales Lampeter), who read a finalCypriot Bronze Age ceramic production. It is no coincidence draft of the paper.that mass production of wheelmade pottery coincided with theheight of urbanisation and foreshadowed the homogeneousIron Age ceramic industry. List of Abbreviations BR Base Ring CG Cypro-Geometric LBA Late Bronze AgeAcknowledgements LC Late CypriotI would like to thank the editors for inviting me to contribute MBA Middle Bronze Ageto this volume. I worked at Kissonerga-Mosphilia for Eddie MC Middle Cypriotin 1988 through which I became interested in Cypriot WPWM III White Painted Wheelmade IIIceramics. Between 1995 and 1998 I held a British Academy WS White Slippostdoctoral fellowship at the University of Edinburgh114 Louise Steel

THE DOMESTICATION OF STONE:

EARLY LIME PLASTER TECHNOLOGY IN THE LEVANT

Gordon Thomas

When considering the place of technology in prehistory, this discussion I will refer to lime plaster only where itarchaeological research tends to focus on practical aspects has been reliably identified by scientific analysis; all vagueof how it is conducted, what its material correlates are or and generalised references to ‘plasters’ encountered inthe manner in which it is transmitted between groups and excavation reports are ignored as these frequently makeacross time. The origins of any particular technology are no distinction between innovative mud technology andonly vaguely considered and are usually assumed to be the actual lime or gypsum plasters. In particular, I will rely onadaptive product of trial and error over many generations. I the work of W. David Kingery, Pamela B. Vandiver andhave long been uneasy with this rather simplistic approach Martha Prickett (1988) for their analysis of many of thethat makes many assumptions about the nature of technology most important early samples from the Near East.and also about the way both human society and the Lime plaster making is a complex and, at times, counter-human mind work. I hope within this essay to stretch intuitive technology which requires a specific cycle ofour understanding a little of the origins of one particular manufacture (Fig. 14.1). Quarried limestone chunks (CaCO3),technology, that of lime plaster making in the Levant, and pure calcium carbonate, are first burnt in a kiln (Fig. 14.2)although I can provide no definitive answer to the question, with temperatures of 800–900˚ centigrade, effectively drivingI hope nevertheless to present a possible way forward in our off all carbon dioxide and leaving a powdery substancethinking by opening up the way we look at this technologyand by questioning some of the assumptions we makeabout it. I will argue that lime plaster making is a complex,counter-intuitive technology which developed in the NearEast during the Natufian period prior to the inception ofthe full Neolithic. I also argue against the fortuitous orcasual development of such a technology, seeing it rather asresulting from specific relationships forged between peopleand various elements of their environment which emergedfrom new systems of belief and practice. In this I turn to thework of David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce (2005), aswell as Jacques Cauvin (2000), as sources of inspiration.

Lime Plaster Making

The identification of lime plaster is a skill which is achievedonly by experience but is more reliably achieved through Fig. 14.1 The lime cycle showing the chemical changes to thespecific chemical and microscopic analyses. Throughout material during the process.118 Gordon Thomas

called quicklime (CaO) (Fig.14.3). When slaked in water

the quicklime reacts violently and gives off a tremendous heat and smell, creating over a length of time lime putty or calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) (Fig.14.4). Under modern, airtight conditions this material can be stored for considerable periods of time and indeed improves in condition and quality. However, as soon as the material is used and is therefore exposed to air, another reaction takes place in which the water is driven from the paste and carbon dioxide is reabsorbed from the air back into the material, thus re-establishing its original chemical composition, CaCO3, and creating a strong, durable plaster with chemical characteristics and propertiesFig. 14.2 A simple lime burning kiln. The kiln is about one metre in similar to the original limestone. More advanced use of thediameter and will produce enough material to cover the interior walls material with the addition of aggregates or animal hair canof one of the five metre diameter houses at the Lemba Experimental further improve the performance of the lime plaster. AnalysesVillage in Cyprus (Thomas 2004). of many samples of lime plaster from early sites in the Near East indicate that calcination at the burning stage was often incomplete, resulting in the inclusion of limestone fragments and pieces of charcoal within the final lime plaster (Kingery et al. 1988, 224–225, 228–231).

The Lime Plaster Industry in the Levant

The Natufian period in the Levant (also known as the late Epi-Palaeolithic) is a period of remarkable change in which there was a shift from simple to complex subsistence systems involving the intensive use of certain plant resources and the development of increasingly complex relationships with specific animal food sources, most notably gazelle. New and quite variable tool technologies emerged, including, for the first time, ground stone tool technology, and there was also a florescence of figurative and decorative ‘art’. SignificantlyFig. 14.3 Powdered, burnt limestone direct from the kiln showing for this discussion, the early Natufian core area in north andthe disintegration of the limestone as it is turned into quicklime. central Israel and Jordan saw the emergence of the first largeEach chunk of calcined limestone weighs between one and two semi-permanent settlements. Semi-subterranean structures,kilogrammes. some with a concentric ring of postholes, have been recorded at a number of sites across the region with the best preserved being found at ‘Ain Mallaha (Perrot 1960; 1966; 1975). This period is seen as the time in which the foundations of many of the key aspects of the ‘Neolithic revolution’, which characterised the succeeding periods, were established (Simmons 2007; Rollefson 2008; Olszewski 2008). It was also during this time that the knowledge of making lime plaster first emerged in the Near East. The lime plaster industry is thought to have emerged as a complex pyrotechnic process during the Natufian phase in the Levant c. 12,800–10,500 BP (i.e. before the archaeological present, c. 1950). One of the best preserved sites, as far as the architectural evidence is concerned, is the site of Hayonim Cave, dated to c. 12,400–12,000 BP, which produced evidence of a possible lime plaster ‘kiln’ (KingeryFig. 14.4 Lime putty after slaking the quicklime in water for et al. 1988, 223). The excavator (Bar Yosef 1983) describesseveral weeks. six rounded, semi-subterranean, stone-built structures 14. The domestication of stone: Early lime plaster technology in the Levant 119

constructed in a cluster at the mouth of the cave. Most of The Identification of Lime Plastersthese structures contained a hearth, but one in particular was The first problem arises with the methods used to analyse2.5 m in diameter and contained a hearth with a 0.20 m thick early plasters. Kingery et al. (1988) base their identificationlayer of a white, porous material (Bar Yosef 1983). This was on chemical analyses and on the microscopic determinationidentified through scanning electron microscopy and energy of the micro-structure of the material. They were concerneddispersive x-ray analysis as being almost pure lime plaster primarily with the distinction between lime and gypsum(CaCO3) with some residual limestone fragments (Kingery et plasters on the basis of the scanning electron microscopeal. 1988, 223). These buildings, as well as the slightly later identification of either the needle-like morphology ofstructures built on the terrace in front of the cave (Valla 1998), gypsum plaster or the colloidal spherules of lime plaster.produced several hearths set with limestone blocks and pits Microscopic analysis of lime plasters from sites in thelined with limestone slabs. Limestone was also used quite Levant by Goren and Goldberg (1991) has revealed thatextensively during the Natufian for ground stone mortars at previous analysis based only on chemical identifications canHayonim Cave and as slabs for tables or sometimes with be misleading since it fails to distinguish between limestonecup-marks and set beside hearths as at Ramat Harif (Valla and lime plaster, both of which appear as CaCO3. It is the1998). At the early Natufian site of ‘Ain Mallaha a remarkable appearance of the crystals and the presence of microfossilsset of buildings is preserved set into the hill slope such that under the microscope which can determine the compositionthe buildings are semi-subterranean with one side open of the plaster and the extent of the use of true burnt lime.downslope. The buildings are circular or semi-circular and Kingery et al. make no mention of micro-fossils althoughare constructed in carefully set dry-stone walls with internal they do describe incompletely calcined material, which mayspace subdivided by partitions represented by postholes and suggest some of the samples contained unburnt limestone.low dividing walls. Several hearths, each of slightly different In many cases Goren and Goldberg were able to determineform, are preserved in one of the best surviving houses often that burnt lime formed a much smaller percentage of the totalin association with limestone kerbs or slabs. Against one of bulk of the plasters than was thought to be the case, withthe walls was a ‘bench’ covered with a degraded material, 30% being a more realistic figure for most samples. Theyidentified by Kingery and his colleagues as an incompletely also suggest that firing temperatures for the production ofcalcined lime plaster which had been metamorphosed by lime were never as high or as prolonged as had previouslyprolonged exposure (Kingery et al. 1988, 228). However, been claimed. These findings are also borne out by my ownValla also describes a wall which at one point had been “… research using experimental archaeology to reconstruct thereplaced by a covering of crushed limestone coated with red châine opératoire of the lime plaster cycle (Thomas 2004).paint,” which he regards as “… one of the earliest examples This considerably alters our perception of the early stagesof an artificial construction material (1998, 172). It is unclear of the development of this technology and suggests thatwhether or not these two things are the same feature. There primitive lime plaster could potentially have been madeis also some evidence that this technology was known by at under domestic conditions. However, this does not answerleast the Epi-Palaeolithic (c. 14,000 BP) and was used as “… the question of how it was discovered; it merely indicatesan adhesive to assemble a tool from flint microliths…” from to us that the wherewithal to create lime plasters alreadyLagama North VIII (Kingery et al. 1988, 219). However, existed by the early Natufian period.this latter example is unusual in that it is so early, pre-dating The second problem regarding concepts of the earlyNatufian developments, and it comes from a site in the Sinai discovery of lime plaster making concerns the assumptionswhich lies outside the core Natufian area. we make about the role of ancient technology. When What is clear from this very brief summary of early lime considering questions about the origins and developmentplasters in the Levant is that during the Natufian period where of complex technologies in antiquity we must also considerit first emerged, limestone was being used extensively in the the ancient mind. Lewis-Williams and Pearce (2005) haveconstruction of houses and in fixtures and fittings within these led us into a very plausible interpretation of the workingshouses. We also have evidence which places this limestone of the ancient mind. In the absence of any analyticalin conjunction with hearths and storage pits, frequently form of reasoning and of a world view informed by thelining them or as a foundation stone within them. This close scientific method we cannot assume that ‘discovery’ andrelationship between limestone, fire and possibly water in invention in prehistory came about through trial and errora domestic setting makes the fortuitous ‘discovery’ of the or by experimental practice. We cannot assume that thetechnology of lime plaster making an obvious and justifiable path to domestication or to the development of a particularassumption. However, there are two main problems with this technology was goal oriented. That would presume thatline of reasoning, as I will argue below. The first problem the ancient mind was able to theorise about a concept, forrelates to the methods used for modern plaster identifications, example lime plaster or domestic animals, for which it hadand the second relates to modern concepts about the discovery no previous knowledge or experience. If we were to makeand development of technology.120 Gordon Thomas

such an argument we would run the risk of teleological I have outlined above, whereby we cannot assume thereasoning whereby the end result would be considered to ability to theorise a final result. I suggest that in Kingery’sbe the cause of a particular technology. ‘campfire hypothesis’ there is no obvious sequence of events Technology develops when human behaviour and the which could have led to the fortuitous discovery of limenatural behaviour of plants and animals or the properties plaster. Secondly, as anyone who has experimented withof materials coincide. The domestication of plants and this technology will know, there are the practical aspectsanimals and the exploitation of natural resources occur of lime burning whereby very strong, unpleasant and toxicbecause people choose to put themselves into a close fumes are released during the calcination process that wouldrelationship with them. Lewis-Williams and Pearce suggest not have been tolerated around a domestic hearth or duringthat the domestication of plants and animals itself had cooking.little to do with food procurement and the security of the So, it is likely that either the normal domestic hearth wouldfood supply (2005, 139). They develop a very convincing not have been able to achieve temperatures high enough toargument characterising the emergence of domestication as allow calcination to take place or, if it was possible, that it dida human-plant/animal relationship which evolved through not occur within a domestic setting. In either case it makesshamanistic practices and beliefs. The relationship works the ‘campfire hypothesis’ for the discovery of lime plasterand persists when the behaviour of both come together or making improbable. For these reasons it is also unlikely thatcoincide with one another. I suggest that the same sort of the lime plaster recorded on the hearth at Hayonim Cavecognitive processes were in operation with the domestication was created in situ. Experimental work has shown that limeof plants or animals and the exploitation of other aspects burning kilns do not necessarily leave a skim of lime plasterof the environment. However, in order to examine this around the base of the kiln (Thomas 2004), which is thestatement it is first necessary to discuss some of the assumption implicit in describing the Hayonim hearth as acommonly held views or assumptions about the emergence lime-burning kiln. Additionally, the high temperatures neededof lime plaster technology. to achieve calcination would have ignited the structure within which the hearth was located, and the slaking process itself could not have occurred on the hearth itself. A more likelyTwo Models of the Early ‘Discovery’ of Lime scenario would have the lime plaster being created elsewherePlaster Technology and then applied to the hearth as a final act. A second possible hypothesis, which I have not seenWhat sort of cultural behaviour makes the acquisition and specifically articulated within a Near Eastern context, is thedevelopment of a particular technology more likely? This so-called ‘pot boiler hypothesis’. Across much of the Britishquestion addresses the issue of the link between cognitive Isles during the Bronze and Iron Ages huge mounds offunctions, cultural practices, and the physical properties stones that have been used as pot boilers have accumulatedof materials that leads to the development of particular over the centuries. These are stones which when heated intechnologies. In the context of this essay we must ask what a fire and then plunged into water can be used to boil apossible cognitive processes could have led people to burn container of water either for cooking or also possibly inlumps of limestone at very high temperatures, store the saunas. Although this phenomenon has not specificallyresulting powder in water for a length of time and then use been identified in the Near East, there is some evidence thatit to create new types of objects and architectural features. stones may have been used in a similar manner and, as aI am wary of the notion that the emergence of complex potential route for the discovery of lime plaster making, musttechnologies was a fortuitous or experimental process except be explored. On the face of it, this is a practice which hasin that it may have been the side result of other specific much to commend it as a potential source for the discoveryactivities and beliefs. Kingery et al., however, appear to of lime plaster making as it involves first heating stones infollow such a line of reasoning (1988, 220): a fire before plunging them into water, both of which are necessary steps in the operational sequence for making lime A limestone hearth under a strong fire or a few limestone pebbles in a bright fire will have a surface layer transformed plaster. It has the advantage over the ‘campfire hypothesis’ into quicklime (CaO) which, when mixed with water, gives in that there is this obvious sequence of events which can off heat, reacts with hide or hair, and can be smeared on a be seen as the precursor of, or at least the basis for, the surface to set as a hard, rock-like product….Thus, in lime rich development of this technology. However, some of the areas, the ‘discovery’ of lime and gypsum plasters must have arguments against the ‘campfire hypothesis’ pertain to the occurred many times. ‘pot-boiler hypothesis’ as well. Firstly, there is the question of intent and the risk of teleological reasoning, which wouldI believe that there are problems with this sort of reasoning see the end result as driving the evolution of practice fromrelating both to the logic used and to the practicalities of the heating of pot-boiler stones for cooking to lime plasterthis technology. Firstly, there is the question of intent, which making. Secondly, and probably more importantly from a 14. The domestication of stone: Early lime plaster technology in the Levant 121

practical perspective, there are doubts that normal domestic end result is used. Each technology, however, is situatedfires could ever have heated the limestone to the required within a social, cultural and ideational framework of belieftemperatures for calcination to take place, and there is also and practice. Technologies do not emerge for practicalthe problem that heated limestone, when plunged into water, reasons alone. The work of Pierre Lemonnier (1992; 2002)reacts violently and dissolves, effectively contaminating alerts us to the way in which technological practice can bethe water or food. Ancient people would presumably deeply embedded within the social fabric and within beliefhave learned very quickly that all sedimentary stones are systems and demonstrates how technological choice is notunsuitable as pot-boilers. So, the essential premise for a always informed by practical considerations of efficiencytechnology to develop – that repeated practice would lead or usefulness. The development of a particular technologyto the accumulation of experience and knowledge necessary is usually along pathways forged by belief systems andto develop a new technology – would not have occurred. concepts of cosmology, and it is through this that systems of cultural selection and choice come into play. David Lewis-Williams (2004) and with David Pearce (2005) have produced a very persuasive argument basedExperiment: The Way Forward? on shamanistic beliefs and practice, beginning with theClearly, if assumptions such as the campfire and the pot- Upper Palaeolithic in Europe and reaching into the Epi-boiler hypotheses are to be addressed as possible models Palaeolithic of the Near East, which link specific neurologicalof technological innovation, they need to be tested. With functions within the human brain with belief and practice.this in mind it is possible to devise a series of experiments They demonstrate possible mechanisms by which humanand research projects designed to test specific aspects of experience (in this case, altered states of consciousness)ideas about this early industry in the Levant. The questions can lead to the emergence of different belief systems andraised can be posed along the following lines: 1) Can we a change in the perception of the world and of the humandistinguish between crushed limestone paste and lime plaster relationship with it. In particular, they demonstrate howin the archaeological record? 2) Can lime plaster be created belief systems can bring people, plants, animals and materialsusing either the campfire or the pot-boiler hypotheses? 3) into a closer, more dynamic relationship that brings about aCan we identify the operational sequence of lime plaster fundamental alteration in the nature of these things: in othermaking on Natufian sites? words, domestication. The first of these questions must address the potential Cauvin (2000) also argues convincingly that the Neolithicissue about the identification of lime plasters mentioned in the Near East was not so much a revolution in technologyabove by carrying out a comprehensive set of analyses and practice as a fundamental revolution in symbols andwhich build on the earlier work of Kingery, Vandiver and beliefs. To emphasise this, and in deference to GordonPrickett (Kingery et al. 1988). By replicating in a series of Childe, he coined the term the ‘revolutionary Neolithic’,repeated experiments the practices associated with domestic which entails wide ranging and deep seated changes inhearths and cooking, such experimental texts could establish cultural beliefs and practices in which a very different waythe validity of the assumptions about these two hypotheses. of seeing the world emerged. Like Lewis-Williams andFinally, a new look at the archaeological material itself Pearce he sees the early Neolithic as being characterised byfrom the perspective of trying to identify the operational a conflict of world views between mobile hunter-gathererssequence of a specific technology would be a necessary and and sedentary farmers which was resolved within societyinformative adjunct to any project of research. through the elaboration of ritual practice. When turning to However, if through experimental testing we are to reject the development of technology we see that this highlightsboth of these assumptions or hypotheses about the early the serendipitous nature of discovery and invention indiscovery of lime plaster making, is it possible to put in prehistory by which the coming together of diverse beliefsplace an alternative way of looking at the technology or, at and practices can produce an outcome that is neitherleast, of theorising about its inception? foreseen nor expected. In other words, the experience of shamanistic practice during the very late Palaeolithic led to a very different perception of the human relationship with the world, which in turn led to a fundamentally differentThe Revolutionary Neolithic form of relationship between people and their environment.It is within the context of the emergence of proto-Neolithic This is at the core of the Neolithic experience. People beganaspects during the Natufian period and the critical role that to perceive of the world differently and to treat things liketechnology played in its emergence that we must try to plants, animals and other resources differently. This wouldunderstand the place of the manufacture and use of lime apply as much to inanimate parts of the natural world as itplaster. Studies of technologies too frequently focus on the would to living things, and in the context of this essay wouldpractical aspects of how they are conducted and how the apply equally to the use of stone and, in particular, limestone.122 Gordon Thomas

Answering the question of why or how lime plaster was Cauvin, J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins ofdeveloped may also, therefore, partly answer the question Agriculture. Translated from the French by T. Watkins. Newabout what the Neolithic is. Did the alteration in perception Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge Universityand behaviour which occurred with relation to the plant Press. Goren, Y. and P. Goldberg 1991. Petrographic thin sections and theand animal kingdoms and led to their domestication also development of Neolithic plaster production in northern Israel.affect other things like limestone? Was stone ‘domesticated’ Journal of Field Archaeology 18, 131–138.during the Natufian period in the Levant? In other words, Gourdin, W. H. and W. D. Kingery 1975. The beginnings ofthrough various social and possibly religious practices pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian lime plaster. Journaldid people specifically start using limestone in a way that of Field Archaeology 2, 133–150.affected its composition and led to the discovery of lime Kingery, W. D., P. B. Vandiver and M. Prickett 1988. Theplaster technology? beginnings of pyrotechnology, part II: Production and use of There are no easy or obvious answers to these questions. lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East.Throughout this paper I have raised doubts concerning Journal of Field Archaeology 15, 219–240.some of the assumptions made about the discovery and Lemonnier P. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology.development of the lime plaster industry in the prehistoric Anthropological Papers 88. Ann Arbor, Museum of Anthro- pology, University of Michigan.Levant, and I have proposed ways of further investigating Lemonnier P. (ed.) 2002. Technological Choices: Transformationsthis phenomenon. I have suggested that the development in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. London, Routledge.of such a technology may have had much in common with Lewis-Williams, D. 2004. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousnesschanges in belief and behaviour that led to domestication and the Origins of Art. London, Thames & Hudson.firstly of plants and later of animals within the same Lewis-Williams, D. and D. Pearce 2005. Inside the Neolithic Mind:time span. By investigating the realities of lime plaster Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of the Gods. London,production through experimental archaeology, and with Thames & Hudson.the help of the analyses of prehistoric plasters by Gourdin Olszewski, D. 2008. The Palaeolithic period, including theand Kingery (1975), Kingery et al. (1988) and Goren and Epipalaeolithic. In R. Adams (ed.) Jordan: An ArchaeologicalGoldberg (1991), the social role of the early lime plaster Reader, 35–69. London, Equinox.industry can be explored within the framework of changes Perrot, J. 1960. Excavations at Eynan (‘Ein Mallaha): Preliminary report on the 1959 season. Israel Exploration Journal 10(1),that were taking place in the Levant during the Natufian 14–22.period. Although experimental archaeology cannot give us Perrot, J. 1966. Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel.a clear answer to the questions posed above, it does have L’Anthroplogie 70, 437–484.the advantage of allowing us to develop our ideas about Perrot, J. 1975. Mallaha, Eynan. Paléorient 2, 485–486.this fascinating period and this innovative technology from Rollefson, G. 2008. The Neolithic period. In R. Adams (ed.) Jor-a better informed perspective. dan: An Archaeological Reader, 71–108. London, Equinox. Simmons, A. H. 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.References Thomas, G. D. 2004. Early lime plaster technology in the NearBar Yosef, O. 1983. The Natufian in the Southern Levant. In East: Experimental work at the Lemba Experimental Village, T. Cuyler Young, P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen (eds) The Cyprus. Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa 3, 91–100. Hilly Flanks and Beyond, 11–42. Studies in Ancient Oriental Valla, F. 1998. The first settled societies – Natufian (12,500 Civilisations 36. Chicago, Oriental Institute, University of – 10,200 BP). In T. Levy (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in Chicago. the Holy Land, 169–187. London, Leicester University Press. 15

DOMESTICATION OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS,

DOMESTICATION OF SYMBOLS?

Danielle Stordeur

Introduction phases, but animals began to be domesticated in the second

The most notable contribution of Jacques Cauvin to (Helmer et al. 2005; Tanno and Willcox 2006). However,the understanding of the origins of the Neolithic is to the two periods hardly differ in their symbolism. As recenthave considered that a profound mental transformation, evidence has mainly appeared in the northern Levant, weperceptible through a ‘revolution of symbols’ beginning will start in this region and examine the southern Levantin the Khiamian, was the principal driving force behind only for purposes of comparison.the advent of farming and herding (Cauvin 1977). Sincehis death, our knowledge has expanded, especially in the Between 8000 and 7000 BC: Fully Agriculturalnorthern Levant, concerning occupations from the Pre-pottery Neolithic A (henceforth PPNA) to the Pottery SocietiesNeolithic. Thus it is important to re-examine the evidence The middle and late PPNB may be considered jointly. Theto learn whether other transformations may be inferred. first is well defined and is set apart from the past by theWhat are the characteristics of the symbolism used by the fact that farming and herding had truly become part of anpopulations which, from the PPNA Horizon to the early economic system. But there is nothing conclusive that setsPPNB, were just beginning to master their environment? the late PPNB apart in regard to its symbolism. There areHow do these symbols change, when in the middle PPNB clear differences between the northern and southern Levant.agriculture became part of a genuine economic system? To We will start this time in the south as it is there that newattempt to answer these questions I will examine the cultures practices indicative of social and ideological changes arewhich succeeded each other from 9500 to 7000 BC (all revealed.dates in this paper are cal BC; phasing follows Aurencheet al. 1981): the PPNA (9500–8700 BC), the early PPNB(8700–8200 BC), the middle PPNB (8200–7500 BC), and Symbolism at the Time of the First Experimentsthe late PPNB (7500–7000 BC). I propose to discuss thesephases chronologically in groups of two. in Farming For the sites of the northern Levant dated from 9500 to 8200 BC, there is no representation explicitly referring toBetween 9500 and 8200 BC: The Beginnings the domesticated plants and animals which humans wereof Agriculture and Herding beginning to master (Stordeur 2003; Helmer et al. 2004).There are several arguments for linking the PPNA and What then were the themes which preoccupied them?the early PPNB, at least in the northern Levant where a Animals are represented in figurative representations ortransitional phase shows the progressive passage from by their bones. For the aurochs, the largest animal of theone to the other (Stordeur and Abbès 2002). In this zone period, deposits of bucrania are very frequent and found inthe principal architectural and social changes appeared in collective contexts, almost always concealed, as at Mureybetthe PPNA. Agriculture remained pre-domestic in the two (Cauvin 1997), Tell ‘Abr 3 (Yartah 2005a,b), Qaramel124 Danielle Stordeur

(Mazurowski and Jammous 2000), Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 15.1, nos 7–8). But the later site of Çatal Hüyük provides1999) and Dja’de (Coqueugniot 2000). However, at Jerf el the clearest representations, depicting birds of prey in flightAhmar (Stordeur 2003) bucrania of aurochs were hung on which appear to be carrying away headless human bodiesthe walls of a small round house (Fig. 15.1, no. 1). The (Fig. 15.1, no. 10; Mellaart 1967). It is notable in thebucrania are sometimes enhanced. At Jerf el Ahmar, one archaeological examples that the connection between theof them was decorated with a necklace, while at Tell ‘Abr vulture and the human specifically relates to the head. Thethe horns were coated with earth before being concealed bird is depicted frontally when it is perched on the headsin a collective building. Representations of bucrania are and reversed when it is associated with headless humans.engraved on small worked stones (Jerf el Ahmar: Fig. The very frequent representation of the snake is sometimes15.1, no. 2) or large slabs (Tell ‘Abr 3). Representations of realistic as at Nevali Çori (Hauptmann 1999) where itthe entire animal are rarer. They emphasise the powerful decorates the back of a human head (Fig. 15.1, no. 11). Theappearance of the male aurochs, as at Göbekli (Fig. 15.1, no. representation is often reduced to an undulating line ending3; Schmidt 2002). The head of the animal is always turned in a triangle as at Jerf el Ahmar (Fig. 15.1, nos 6, 12), Dja’de,to show the two horns. What does this animal evoke? The Tell ‘Abr 3 and Qaramel. The snake is omnipresent in theevidence appears to suggest a masculine symbol, as is the Snake Building at Göbekli (Schmidt 2002). Its symbolismcase in many cultures if the horns are considered (Valla is contrasting – dangerous animal, chthonic, healer – and2003) rather than the specific animal. Moreover, gazelles it appears in all cases to be linked to death, directly or in(Tell ‘Abr 3) or rams (Göbekli) and also horned animals are reversed fashion.sometimes represented. Finally, the scorpion is almost always considered Among felines, panthers are represented at Tell ‘Abr primarily as dangerous although it is also regarded as a3 (Fig. 15.1, no. 4) where they are engraved on slabs maternal symbol. It is found on a grooved stone from Jerf elembellishing the bench of a communal building. They are Ahmar in an accurate and realistic style (Fig. 15.1, no. 13)seen from above in a static position as at Jerf el Ahmar and on a megalithic pillar at Göbekli (Schmidt 2007). It is(Fig. 15.1, no. 11) and Qaramel (Mazurowski 2004), while noteworthy that its antennae are also evocative of horns.in Anatolia they are sometimes shown in dynamic and Representations of the human figure are rare in theaggressive attitudes. Thus on a pillar at Göbekli, a male northern Levant. At Mureybet female figurines are wellpanther, standing erect, shows its teeth (Fig. 15.1, no. 5). attested but are not found on other PPNA sites. They becomeHow should this large nocturnal feline be considered? The more numerous, however, in the early PPNB (Dja’de elrepresentation of the threatening animal contrasts strongly Mughara, Nevali Çori) while animal figures become lesswith that of the animal at rest. The fox, the only canid frequent (Schmidt 1999; Helmer et al. 2004). At Göbekliidentified, figures on the pillars of Göbekli (Fig. 15.1, no. an expression of femininity is present in an ‘immodest’3) and a grooved stone from Jerf el Ahmar (Fig. 15.1, no. engraving of a woman with spread legs. The head and the6). What does it evoke? Not considered to be frightening, body are always dissociated at Jerf el Ahmar, whether inthe fox is attributed a wily character and frequently plays representations or human remains. Several deposits of skullsa double role. Its relation with death is sometimes referred are hidden in communal buildings while a headless skeletonto (myth of Orpheus). lay upon the floor in one of them (Fig. 15.1, no. 9). Two Among the birds, cranes (Fig. 15.1, no. 3) and bustards small heads could be parts of statuettes with a groove at theare represented, but birds of prey are the most frequent. back to allow them to be fixed to the bodies. Conversely, weAt Jerf el Ahmar vultures are represented on small stones. have already mentioned the headless human representationsEven when the bird is frontally depicted, the head is in from a communal building (Fig. 15.1, no. 7).profile so that the beak is clearly seen (Fig. 15.1, no. 6), like In the southern Levant none of the animal themes ofraptors in modern heraldry. While the vulture is a scavenger the north are found. Female representations are dominant.with a negative connotation in Europe, in certain oriental According to the evidence of material culture, it certainlytraditions its relation to death is enhanced. For example, in appears that the north and the south are radically differentZoroastrian funerary rites the bodies of the dead, deposited from one another.on the tops of towers, were taken by vultures. Such practices The northern Levant is characterised by a unique systemcontinue in the Himalayas where the dead are abandoned of symbols in which the animal themes form a coherent,to vultures, symbolically charged with carrying them to the powerful whole. In some cases the wild animals could behereafter. Certain representations of the 10th millennium confused with domestic animals (wild boar/pig, aurochs/ox),suggest the existence of a relation of this type. A bird but wild animals are dominant. The human figure, discreetof prey is perched on the heads of two human figures at at first, emerges more strongly with time. It is sometimesNevali Çori (Hauptmann 1999). A slab engraved with two combined with an animal figure, and the couple thus formedheadless human representations is framed by two steles is significant. Besides the ‘woman and bull’ couple identifiedsculpted in the form of raptor heads at Jerf el Ahmar (Fig. by Cauvin, we have brought to light the link which unites 15. Domestication of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? 125

Fig. 15.1 The symbolic world of the Pre-pottery Neolithic A and the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. (1) house with bucrania at Jerf elAhmar (photo by the author); (2) plaques engraved with bucrania from Jerf el Ahmar; (3) sculpted pillar at Göbekli Tepe: bull, fox andcrane; (4) panthers engraved on a slab at Tell ‘Abr 3; (5) threatening panther at Göbekli Tepe; (6) grooved stone with fox, snakes andvulture from Jerf el Ahmar; (7–8) headless human and stele with sculpted bird of prey from a communal building at Jerf el Ahmar; (9)headless skeleton at Jerf el Ahmar; (10) painting with vultures and headless bodies at Çatal Hüyük (Mellaart 1967). (11) sculpted snakeon the back of a human head from Nevali Çori (Hauptman 1999); (12) plaque engraved with snakes and a panther from Jerf el Ahmar;(13) grooved stone with scorpion from Jerf el Ahmar.126 Danielle Stordeur

vultures with humans, and with death. In order to firmly received the same funerary treatment, a young sheep/goatestablish that these animal and human ‘personages’ form a and many human babies being buried in the walls of housestrue ‘system of symbols’, a great deal of analysis remains (R. Khawam, personal communication). The goat thereforeto be done, but from our first attempts we can observe a appears to replace the ox in explicitly symbolic deposits.recurring pattern. It resides in the ambiguous character of Other evidence seems to indicate a kind of complementaritythe dominant themes, which evoke both life and death, between humans and horned animals as at Kfar HaHoreshmasculine and feminine. But is there a logical relation (Goring-Morris 2005). It could be a bovid buried under abetween this possible ‘system’ and the preoccupations human grave, a headless skeleton of a gazelle depositedof the populations which were beginning to master their near a modelled (‘plastered’) human skull, or human bonesenvironment? We have not seen a direct reference to this disposed in the form of an animal silhouette.mastery. As the link during this first stage is far from being Throughout the Levant the modification of themes isclear, it is necessary to examine what happens next in the accompanied by a transformation of the stylistic language.story. Do we see real changes in symbolism among the The animals figured are almost all domestic, and the mannerpopulations which became true farming societies? of representing them also appears ‘domesticated’. The ox does not escape this transformation, but its importance is indicated by the fact that it is over-represented (D. Helmer, personal communication). The horned animals are evidenceSymbolism in Fully Agricultural Societies of both continuity and change. Although the ox appearsBetween the early PPNB and the middle PPNB, there is a to retain a certain prestige, its representation has becomerupture detectible everywhere, especially in the southern familiar. Moreover, male goat horns in the deposits are oftenLevant, a region where influences from the north had substituted for those of an ox. An apparent continuity couldbegun to mix with earlier traditions. In examining the entire also conceal profound changes. Thus at Çatal Hüyük, inmiddle/late PPNB, we often begin with the evidence from spite of the obvious links with past traditions, it appears thatthe south, as it is there that new practices appear which are the human-animal relation is reversed: it is man (or ratherrevelatory of a change in mentalities. woman?) that appears to dominate the great cats. Animal symbolism persists with representations and What about the human figure? Most of the figurinesdeposits of bones. Animal representations (Fig. 15.2, nos are female. Two groups stand out. The first consists of the1–2) throughout the Levant are similar. Everywhere, clay- statuettes made in the continuity of the old traditions. Theyfigurines represent goats, sheep, oxen, pigs and more rarely are quite realistic with ample but well-proportioned formsfoxes. These are almost always domestic animals. Thus and are found throughout the Levant. In the south theya primary difference with the preceding period becomes are very stereotyped (e.g. Tell Aswad and ‘Ain Ghazal:apparent. Representations of powerful or dangerous animals Fig. 15.2, nos 4–5). The second corresponds to humanhave disappeared. The representations are small and representations of simple geometric volume, emphasizingstereotyped. From the southern to the northern Levant a selection of specifically female characteristics.representations of oxen are similar at Tell Aswad (Fig. 15.2, But representations on a large scale exist in Anatolia andno. 1), ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1983), Gritille (Voigt 1985), in the southern Levant. At ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1983) flatMezraa Teleilat (Özdoğan 2007) and Halula (Fig. 15.2, no. statues modelled in lime plaster on a reed core required a2; Molist-Montana 1996). high technical investment. The face is polychrome. Bitumen Çatal Hüyük is an exception. Although late, it retains a on the top of the head suggests the attachment of hair. Atlink not only with the earlier animal themes of the northern Jericho (Garstang et al. 1935) the same type of statue showsLevant, but with an emphatic manner of representation. The a face with sculpted features with paint suggesting a beard‘vulture/death’ association is very explicit (Fig. 15.2, no. 10). or body painting. There are masks from many sites. AnThe other ‘dominant’ animals, the aurochs, the raptors and example from Nahar Hemar is painted with lines runningthe felines, are still represented on a large scale. But even from the centre of the face towards the temples. Lateralthough the ‘symbolic actors’ are the same as before, the roles holes carry traces of bitumen, which could have served towhich they play indicate another relation between animals attach hair (Bar Yosef and Alon 1988).and humans (Mellaart 1967; Cauvin 1997; Forest 1993). The human representations of this phase are thus variedThus the panthers are represented not as threatening but as and may be classed in three groups: the first consists ofdominated, as seen, for example, on a statuette showing a female statuettes with norms evoking the past; the secondwoman seated on a chair composed of two panthers, her consists of simple figures; and the third consists of statueshands resting on their heads (Fig. 15.2, no. 3). and masks that indicate features, painting on the body, and Deposits of horns are found throughout the Levant. At hair.Tell Aswad male goat horns were deposited in two pits at The funerary practices in the northern and southern Levantthe entrance of a house. Young animals and young humans are clearly different from each other. In the north the burials 15. Domestication of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? 127

occur in the private sphere as at Halula (Molist-Montana building. It is ‘brought out’ during ceremonies and perched2007) while in the south collective funerary precincts appear. on a mannequin. After two or three generations the modelledIn the north funerary objects are omnipresent while in the skull is buried, always in a collective context. Although atsouth they are rare. Finally, it is only in the south that a Jericho the destruction of the building corresponds perhapsparticular practice characteristic of this period occurs: the to the first stage, at Aswad we are definitely in the second,modelling of skulls. Modelled skulls have been found on but we know that the first was respected thanks to certainseven sites: Ramad, Aswad, ‘Ain Ghazal, Kfar HaHoresh, details: the existence of a broken nose that was repaired,Beisamoun, Jericho and Yiftahel (H. Khalaili, personal and the absence of fragments which are missing from theircommunication). This treatment, which consists of modelling coating and which would have fallen outside the tomb.a face on the skull of the deceased, is reserved for rare The modelling of skulls required great technical skill andindividuals who appear to have belonged to a kind of social probably a high level of initiation. Those who carried out the‘elite’. The meaning of these practices remains elusive, but modelling must have had a particular status, like those whoseit can be approached by bringing together a multitude of skulls were modelled. The society that conceived of suchobservations on the contexts of the deposits, their structure, practices would have been structured with a differentiation intheir associations with other remains or objects, and their roles. An organisation by lineage may have existed, or evenaccessibility. It is necessary to determine the sex and age of a hierarchy, although we do not know what the nature andthe individuals and the exact treatment of each of the skulls. the extent of the power held by its beneficiaries might haveWhat observations have we been able to bring together and been. What is important here is to demonstrate the profoundwhat suggestions does ethnography offer us? change in beliefs which this practice indicates, and to keep At Tell Aswad the modelled skulls were found in this in mind while integrating the representations and thecollective contexts in two successive funerary areas. For masks into our research. Ethnology is helpful. We see that ineach episode, a single burial contains at its base modelled the middle Sepik (New Guinea) four ‘subjects’ are decoratedskulls (Fig. 15.2, nos 6–12) buried under other human with standardised motifs and colours which refer to socialremains (Stordeur and Khawam 2007). The coating covers classifications: bodies are painted for ceremonial dances;the entire face including the jaw. The eyes are represented bodies of the deceased are painted; and modelled skulls andclosed, and the junction of the eyelids is indicated by a slit masks are decorated (C. Kocher, personal communication).filled with black. The representation of the nose is careful These types of decoration could have been practised in the(Fig. 15.2, nos 9–12). Technical and stylistic differences PPNB. We have in fact found common points in the use ofexist, but there is a certain degree of homogeneity within colours on the statues, masks and modelled skulls, and haveeach group. For example, the ears are fine and realistic in noted the usual preoccupation with inserting hair to completethe older group, but simpler in the later group. In the latter, the representation.the use of yellow is added to the red, white and black usedearlier, and all the skulls are mounted on low bases. Themodelling on their foreheads and temples was cut to form anindentation that suggests the implantation of hair (Fig. 15.2, Conclusionsnos 9, 12). This observation, coupled with the fact that the What seems to become apparent with the new archaeologicalcoating is turned back at the ears, suggests that hair was fixed evidence from the Levant dating to between 9500 and 7000to the modelled skulls of the later area. Sex and age have not BC is that a real change in symbolism and in imaginationyet been determined, but when they are determined account occurred around 8200 BC. A coherent system which expressedmust be taken of the fact that the notion of ‘ancestor’ is not itself through representation of wild animals changed toalways related to age (as, for example, in New Guinea). one in which the human being was at the centre. This newThe individuals whose skulls are modelled could have been system of thought appears to correspond to the momentchosen for the symbolic status of ancestor. Social standing, when fundamental socio-economic changes took place. Thedeeds of war and of power, as well as other factors could populations of the PPNA and early PPNB experimented withhave guided the choice of a particular individual. agriculture and herding, and their material culture reflects a This is the context which at the moment provides the feverish spirit of invention. Their symbolic world, however,most solid clues. All the modelled skulls at Tell Aswad, as remained dominated by animal figures. The new importancethey were found, were definitely out of reach, buried as they accorded to the human figure accompanied the beginning ofwere at the bottom of graves and covered by other human the middle PPNB and not the ferment which preceded it. Itremains. Elsewhere, as at Jericho, some were found placed is in the middle PPNB that wild nature is domesticated inon the floors of buildings, accessible and thus subject to the fields and herds, and possibly also in human mentalities.manipulation. The ethnographic data agree on one thing But the break is neither total nor definitive. A continuous– that the practice of modelling skulls consists of two stages. thread links the two periods which we have examined, andDuring the first, the modelled skull is kept in a communal this possibly corresponds to myths which in certain cultures 15. Domestication of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? 129

HERDS LOST IN TIME: ANIMAL REMAINS FROM

THE 1969–1970 EXCAVATION SEASONS AT THE CERAMIC NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF PHILIA-DRAKOS SITE A, CYPRUS

Paul Croft

Introduction Only very recently (late 2008) was the task begun ofThe remarkable and continuous succession of field projects systematically examining and documenting the assemblage.that Eddie Peltenburg has undertaken in Cyprus over four Excavations on several Cypriot Ceramic Neolithic sites, asdecades has contributed massively to our understanding well as a book focussing on the period (Clarke 2007), add upof the early prehistory of the island. Participation in these to a significant renewal of interest in recent years, impellingprojects has had an enormous influence on the way that the writer to commence this long-intended study. It may besuccessive generations of younger scholars think about and observed, as an aside, that for the 1969 animal bones frompractice archaeology. Whilst these projects have focussed Philia-Drakos the timing of the study was fortunate indeed,mainly on western Cyprus they began, prior to the Turkish for although some contextual information has been lost as ainvasion of 1974, with excavations on the north coast at result of the ongoing deterioration of disintegrating, insect-Ceramic (Late) Neolithic Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi (henceforth ravaged brown paper bags and fading labels, the informationVrysi) from 1969–1973. The results of investigations at was still salvageable for the greater part of the material.Vrysi remain central to our understanding of the period During the course of the five excavation seasons at Philia-and its chronology. Drakos the excavator had remarked upon the abundance Beginning several years before the Vrysi project an- of faunal remains; the quantity of antlers in particularother Ceramic Neolithic settlement, Philia-Drakos Site suggested that deer were important here (Watkins 1969,A (henceforth Philia-Drakos), was excavated by Trevor 35; 1970a, 241). Subsequently, the present writer was ableWatkins (1965–1970). Indeed, the young Peltenburg assisted to examine some of the bone recovered during the 1968here in his pre-Vrysi days (1967). Philia-Drakos is located season, and figures of 71% deer, 17% pig and 11% caprinesinland, some 35 km to the southwest of Vrysi, and in view were generated from a sample of 252 postcranial fragmentsof the broad synchroneity and geographic proximity of identified at this time (Croft 1991, 69). This frustratinglythe two sites comparison of the material recovered from limited amount of information, with percentages based onthem would seem particularly apt. However, the extent a potentially inadequate small sample, is all that has beento which comparison has been possible and, indeed, a available to researchers (e.g. Wasse 2007, 61) up untilbroader assessment of how the Philia-Drakos settlement now. Accordingly, one purpose of the present contributionfits into the Cypriot Ceramic Neolithic as a whole, has is to upgrade the quality of information available, pendingbeen hampered by the incomplete publication of the Philia- completion of the analysis of the Philia-Drakos bones andDrakos excavations. their eventual publication in detail. Additionally, the paper With regard to the substantial quantity of animal remains offers a comparison, at a general level, with the Vrysiexcavated at Philia-Drakos, they have received virtually faunal record and also that from Paralimni-Nissia, one ofno attention for the forty years since their excavation, and the recently excavated sites.little information has previously been available on them. Philia-Drakos was a village settlement located on132 Paul Croft

the southern slope of the shallow Ovgos river valley, NISP

consisting of small sub-rectangular buildings with stone- fallow deer 2224 (66.5%)built foundations supporting walls of mud or other materials.Beneath the buildings a remarkable series of rock-cut caprines 756 (22.6%)shafts, tunnels and chambers are of obscure, possibly ritual pig 304 (9.1%)purpose. The settlement was at least partly surrounded by dog 39 (1.2%)a substantial wall and ditch arrangement. It was occupied, fox 18 (0.5%)probably discontinuously, from an initial phase of the cat 2 (0.1%)Ceramic Neolithic period, characterised by Dark-FacedBurnished Ware and an absence of the Red on White painted TOTAL 3343pottery that characterises the three subsequent phases on the Table 16.1 Identified mammalian bone fragments from Philia-site (Watkins 1969; 1970b). Although not initially accepted Drakos A.by the excavator (Watkins 1973, 52), a single radiocarbondetermination (Birm-72 5270±100 non cal BP or late 4th–early 5th millennium cal BC) on probable hearth material that have previously been quoted elsewhere (e.g. Croftof phase 3 is credible (Peltenburg 1978, fig.5; Stanley Price 1991, 69) probably reflects some combination of the1979, 19–21, 31), but the duration of the occupation at inherent unreliability of the original small faunal sample,Philia-Drakos is not known. The Ceramic Neolithic period the exclusion of cranial fragments from it, and the writer’sin Cyprus probably began around 4700 cal BC, lasting some greater experience of identifying fragmentary prehistoric700–800 years until the transition to the Early Chalcolithic Cypriot animal bones after three decades of practice.around 4000/3900 cal BC (Clarke 2007, 22). The analysis of the Philia-Drakos animal remains is still inprogress. Material from the 1969 and 1970 excavation seasons Larger Mammalshas all been identified and recorded, but nothing from the In view of the abundance of antler at Philia-Drakos,1965 and 1967 seasons has yet been examined. The relatively and its highly fragmented condition, it would clearlysmall amount of 1968 material that the writer was previously be inappropriate to count each identifiable scrap as anable to examine, mentioned above, seems too little to be the individual fragment for analytical purposes. Accordingly,entire collection from that season and, in any case, has been antler has been incorporated by counting each shed antlerexcluded from consideration here. Although it is derived from base as an individual fragment, and if an excavationonly a portion of the entire assemblage, it is hoped that the context yielded antler pieces that did not include a shedpresentation here of some general information on the Philia- base (or seemed unlikely to be broken off from an alreadyDrakos animal bones, and preliminary discussion of it, will counted shed base), a count of one single antler fragmentbe viewed as pertinent at a time of escalating interest in the was recorded for this material also. Unshed antler bases,Cypriot Ceramic Neolithic. attached to pedicles/frontal bones, were counted as head fragments. This approach resulted in 86 countable pieces of antler being included in the NISP (Number of Identified Specimens) for deer and, by counting them in this way, itThe Philia-Drakos Animal Bones is hoped that exaggeration of the dominance of deer in the(1969–1970 Seasons) assemblage has been avoided. Twenty-four shed antler basesBecause analysis of the Philia-Drakos animal bones is still were recorded to which may be added 3 pedicles from whichin progress, and as contextual and phasing information are the antlers had clearly been shed to give a total of 27 shednot presently available to the writer, the 1969–1970 animal antlers. More than twice as abundant, though, were unshedbones are considered here as a single, undifferentiated antlers (57 specimens plus a hacked pedicle implying theassemblage. The assemblage of over 3000 identifiable removal of an additional unshed antler).fragments (Table 16.1) is heavily dominated by the remains Identified caprine remains include 110 fragments (76%)of fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) (66.5%). Caprines that could be identified as sheep and 35 (24%) as goat,(22.6%, estimated to consist of roughly three quarters sheep suggesting that sheep outnumbered goats at Philia-Drakosand a quarter goats) and pigs (9.1%) are also abundant. by about 3 to 1. Limited evidence for horncore shapesIn addition to these larger mammals, dog (1.2%), fox indicates that goat horncores were of the untwisted variety(0.5%) and cat (0.1%) are also present. Additionally, non- that is standard in Cyprus up until the Bronze Age whilstmammalian remains include three bird bones, a carapace horncores of sheep resembled those of recent mouflon (Croftfragment of a freshwater turtle, and nine claws of freshwater 2006, 270–71).crab (Potamon sp.). The disparity between the frequencies The deer would have been hunted although doubtlessof the main animals presented here (Table 16.1) and those subjected to some measure of game management (Croft 16. Herds lost in time: Animal remains from the Philia-Drakos Site A, Cyprus 133

1991; 2002). By contrast, the sheep, goats and pig were NISPprobably at least mainly domestic stock although their fallow deer 244 (37.2%)remains may include hunted, free-living individuals also. caprines 330 (50.4%) pig 69 (10.5%) dog 6 (0.9%)Small Carnivores fox 2 (0.3%)A substantial number of dog bones in context 209.2 represent cat 4 (0.6%)most of a single skeleton, and were accordingly counted TOTAL 655as a single fragment although a separately counted pelvic Table 16.2 Identified mammalian bone fragments from Ayiosfragment from this context must derive from a second Epiktitos-Vrysi.individual. Concentrations of 14 dog bones in S2.2 and9 bones in 211.3 may well originally have derived fromsingle individuals, and their inclusion as individuallycounted bones in the NISP has probably resulted in an over- of superimposed small stone buildings clustered in artificialrepresentation of dog, which would otherwise seem to occur hollows located on a small headland on the north coast ofwith a similar frequency to fox. Thirteen bones of larger Cyprus. A substantial ditch defined the landward edge ofmammals, primarily phalanges, displayed clear indications the settlement in its early phases (Peltenburg 1982). A seriesof having been gnawed by dogs, and many other damaged of 16 radiocarbon dates encompasses three phases of occu-and abraded specimens could well have been gnawed. pation, running from c. 4400 to 3900 cal BC (Peltenburg Two longbone shaft fragments of cat included a small and Spanou 1999, table 1). A rather small amount of faunalburnt splintered fragment of the distal part of a humerus material was reported by A. J. Legge from three seasons ofshaft, suggesting the possibility that the carcase had excavation at Vrysi, and in view of his comment that thesomehow been processed. Fox remains encompassed 18 bones were “those so far identified” (1982, 76) it seems thatbones scattered through a dozen different contexts. this report is based on an unspecified proportion of what was actually recovered. Only 667 identifiable bone fragments of larger mammalsNon-mammals were reported from Vrysi (Legge 1982, table 3), the materialBird remains came principally from context 40.3, which deriving overwhelmingly (over 95%) from the middle phaseyielded a substantial piece of ulna shaft that is attributable of occupation here (Legge 1982, 76). Legge suggested thatto one of the several geese (Anser sp.) of the region, and an the paucity of bone and the sparseness of middens on the siteadditional longbone shaft fragment that might well derive may have been due to bones and other rubbish having beenfrom the same individual. A third bird bone, an immature thrown directly into the sea (1982, 78). The Vrysi faunalproximal ulna of an unidentified medium-sized (pigeon data, presented here as Table 16.2, have been abstractedsized) bird, came from 208.3. from various of the tables presented by Legge and also More distinctly aquatic and clearly reflecting the prox- from his text, and are presented here in such a way as toimity of the Ovgos river, the freshwater turtle Mauremys enable comparison to be made as directly as possible withrivulata (otherwise variously known as the stripe-necked the Philia-Drakos data (Table 16.1). Because some of theturtle, Balkan pond turtle or Balkan terrapin) is presumably figures quoted in Table 16.2 do not precisely match figuresthe creature represented by a gracile carapace fragment. presented by Legge, some explanation may be offered toAmongst the animal bones were also remains of freshwater prevent confusion. Most importantly, it should be noted thatcrab (Potamon sp.), the persistence of which in the locality Table 16.2 includes all identified fragments (NISP) of eachis attested by a fairly complete exoskeleton (from 35.4) taxon combining, for the main animals, data for “bones”that was clearly recent in origin. In view of the excavator’s and for “teeth” (and jaws) that were presented separatelycomment on the abundance of crab remains (Watkins 1969, by Legge (1982, tables 6–7). From consideration of Legge’s35; 1970a, 241) it seems very possible that additional (1982, 401–2) description of the dog remains it is unclearancient crab remains were recovered and have been stored how he settled on a count of five bones (1982, table 5),elsewhere, perhaps with the shells that were also mentioned and this writer (following his own method) has inferred aas being numerous (Watkins 1970a, 241). Three out of the total of six countable fragments of dog. For cat, the countnine crab claws seen by the writer were burnt. of four fragments presented in Table 16.2 includes the three teeth described by Legge (1982, 85) in addition to the single non-dental item that he also tabulated (1982, table 5). The three items reported from Vrysi as “possibly roe deer”The Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi Animal Bones (Legge 1982, 76 and table 5) have been excluded fromThe Ceramic Neolithic village settlement of Vrysi consisted consideration here because numerous subsequent studies134 Paul Croft

of faunal remains from prehistoric Cyprus have failed to provided by the excavator, who had classified contextsconfirm the presence of this small deer, so Legge’s tentative at Vrysi into three main types, Legge examined theattribution was almost certainly incorrect. taxonomic composition of the faunal samples by context type, revealing considerable variability (1982, 78–79). Amalgamating data presented separately for dental and other identified pieces by Legge (1982, tables 6–7), itDiscussion may be calculated that 258 fragments identified from floorEven at this interim stage in the examination of the faunal contexts included 23.6% deer, 69.8% caprines and 6.6%remains from Philia-Drakos, the amount of identified pig. By contrast, non-occupation building fills includedmaterial is very much greater than was reported from Vrysi deer and pig remains with twice the frequency (47.7%(Tables 16.1–16.2). Indeed, it amounts to more bone by far and 16.7% of 174 fragments) and caprine remains withthan has previously been reported from the entire Ceramic half the frequency (35.6%). Middens, or “collections ofNeolithic period in Cyprus. Whilst it is clear, then, that rubbish”, the third main type of context, provide an eventhe Vrysi sample must be viewed as less reliable, it is not greater degree of contrast, including 73.6% deer remainsnegligible in size, and it seems unlikely that the considerable and only 15.3% caprine, but the sample (72 fragments)degree to which its composition differs from that of the was rather small to be viewed as reliable. Even so, it seemsPhilia-Drakos sample is completely due to the Vrysi sample fair to suggest that faunal remains in midden deposits werebeing inadequately small. The contrast between the two probably deer-dominated to at least the same degree as thesamples lies in the relative abundance of deer and caprine bones from building fills. The frequency data quoted hereremains. Lumped together, these ruminants account for are illustrated in Fig. 16.2. Legge’s conclusion (1982, 77)nearly identical proportions of identified faunal remains regarding taxonomic composition that “the archaeological(89% at Philia-Drakos, 88% at Vrysi), but considered context of the bone sample appears to be all-important”individually, their proportions diverge widely: deer remains must reflect a significant level of selectivity in the humanare much more abundant and caprine remains less abundant behaviour that lies behind the observed variability. Perhapsat Philia-Drakos than at Vrysi (Fig. 16.1). it was simply the case that the larger bones of deer, more Working with the “unusually complete” information noticeable or more inconvenient underfoot, were more likely 16. Herds lost in time: Animal remains from the Philia-Drakos Site A, Cyprus 135

Fig. 16.2 Relative frequency of identified bone fragments in the main types of context at Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi.

to be ‘tidied up’ from floors, ending up in fills or middens, three times as much, then 61% of the meat at Vrysi may beor being dumped into the sea. (If discard directly into the estimated to have come from deer, compared with as littlesea involved a disproportionate amount of material that as 24% from caprines and 15% from pig. In the same way,would otherwise have ended up in fill or midden contexts, meat supply figures of deer 82%, caprines 8% and pig 10%the entire on-site assemblage will have become skewed may be estimated for Philia-Drakos. Thus, although thein favour of the caprine remains, which are so prevalent contrast between a caprine-dominated faunal assemblagein the floor contexts). More complex scenarios than mere at Vrysi and a deer dominated one at Philia-Drakos issloppy housekeeping may be envisaged, however, entailing pronounced, consideration of relative meat yields arguablytaxon-specific spatial patterning in meat preparation and provides a better assessment of economic importance andconsumption: was deer meat more regularly cooked and/or suggests a more limited degree of disparity, reducing it toconsumed outdoors whilst caprine meat tended more often a matter merely of the extent which deer dominated theto be prepared and eaten indoors? Naturally, consideration animal economies of the two sites.of such possibilities invites further speculation regarding The only other significant bone assemblage from Cyprusculinary practices, and the social and symbolic contexts in that dates to Ceramic Neolithic times comes from Paralimni-which different kinds of meat may have been consumed by Nissia (henceforth Nissia), a walled coastal settlement in thethe Vrysi villagers. southeast of the island (Flourentzos 2008). The assemblage Whatever its cause, the prevalence of caprine remains of 1034 identified bones of large mammals from Nissiaand the paucity of deer bones in the Vrysi assemblage comprised 77.1% deer, 16.7% caprines, 4.1% pig, 1.5%taken as a whole, by comparison with Philia-Drakos, is an dog, 0.4% fox and 0.1% cat (Croft 2008, table 1). Thisobserved fact. It is clear, however, that even if the taxonomic is the same range of animals as attested at both Vrysi andcomposition of the caprine-dominated Vrysi assemblage Philia-Drakos, and their levels of representation within the(as presented in Table 16.2) is accepted at face value, the Nissia sample are broadly similar to Philia-Drakos (Fig.considerably larger body size of deer means that they would 16.1). Relative contributions to meat supply at Nissia mayhave been by far the main providers of meat. If it is assumed, be estimated as deer 90%, caprines 6% and pig 4%. At Vrysifor the sake of making an estimate, that the average deer fish remains were recovered in surprisingly small quantitiesyielded 3.4 times the amount of meat as a caprine, and a pig in view of the coastal location of the site (Legge 1982, 86136 Paul Croft

and table 3), but it is hard to believe that fishing really was cal BC, Cypriot animal economies were characteristicallyof negligible importance here. It may well be that fish are dominated by deer, and the extent of this domination seemsseriously underrepresented in the Vrysi faunal assemblage, to have attained a maximum around the mid-5th millenniumas has been inferred for Nissia (Croft 2008, 105). As at cal BC, i.e. during Ceramic Neolithic times (Croft 1991, 69,Vrysi, marine turtles seem also to have been exploited to 75). Very high levels of deer dependency were maintainedsome degree at Nissia (Legge 1982, 85 and table 3; Croft through into Chalcolithic times, apparently persisting for at2008, 105). least a millennium or so, and longer in some areas (Webb The limited amount of additional faunal data available et al. in press). The decreasing capacity of deer hunting tofor Ceramic Neolithic Cyprus is insufficient to permit even support an expanding human population probably explainsa basic comparison of the sort presented above between the gradual decline in the economic significance of deer,Philia-Drakos, Vrysi and Nissia to be extended to include with human communities pressured into increasing relianceother sites. Faunal material from Dikaios’ old excavation at on domestic stock.Sotira-Teppes seems not to have been saved systematically: Even though the study of faunal remains from Philia-both the original faunal list (Zeuner and Grosvenor Ellis Drakos is not yet complete, and the data have not yet been1961) and, later, Ducos (1965, 4) indicate an implausibly considered in detail, it is already clear that the compositionsmall amount of bone from this extensive excavation. Even of the sample falls into the expected pattern of very heavilythough the figure of 76% deer at Sotira-Teppes quoted by deer dominated animal economies. The identification ofDucos is liable to be unreliable since it is clearly based on the Ceramic Neolithic as the period when dependencea total assemblage of only 25 identified fragments, it is on fallow deer reached an exceptionally high level wasbroadly comparable with the frequencies of deer remains originally based mainly on the rather sparse evidence fromat Philia-Drakos and Nissia, emphasising the contrast Philia-Drakos that was previously available, bolstered bywith Vrysi, where deer remains did not predominate. the very thin evidence from Sotira-Teppes (Croft 1991,Although Kalavasos-Pamboules, another of Dikaios’ old 69), but the upgraded information presented here for Philia-excavations, does possess a Ceramic Neolithic component, Drakos along with recent results from Nissia place thisthe faunal sample that was saved from this site is both conclusion on a much firmer footing. Since it seems likelyincomplete (clearly only selected specimens were saved) that site-specific disposal practices have had an impactand chronologically mixed, including material dating to on the composition of the rather small published faunalthe various phases of the Chalcolithic, so it is of limited sample from Vrysi, doubts exist regarding the degree tovalue (Croft 2007, 70–72). Dikaios (1962, 106–112) did which it truly represents the animal economy. But evennot mention having recovered bones from the neighbouring if the caprine-dominated composition of the Vrysi sampleCeramic Neolithic site of Kalavasos-Kokkinoyia, and recent is accepted at face value, it is still clear that it reflects anexcavations at this enigmatic site seem to confirm that it animal economy in which deer, with their larger body size,lacks animal bones (Croft 2007, 72); whilst the existence were the most productive species. Thus, the differenceof an apparently anosseous site is most intriguing, it is between Vrysi and the apparently standard economies ofunhelpful for present purposes. Finally, faunal remains from Philia-Drakos and Nissia was less pronounced than might bethe 1990s excavations at Kantou-Kouphovounos remain to concluded from the taxonomic composition of the samplesbe published in detail, but preliminary comments indicate of identified bone fragments. Indeed, it seems likely thatmerely that deer, sheep, goat and pig were all present (Karali the Vrysi animal economy, rather than being as eccentric as2002, 467). first appearances might suggest, was also of standard type for the Ceramic Neolithic.

ConclusionsFollowing the introduction of fallow deer to Cyprus, Referencesprobably by colonists who imported a Neolithic (PPNB) Clarke, J. 2007. On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus duringagro-pastoralist way of life around the mid-9th millennium the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. Oxford, Oxbow. Croft, P. W. 1991. Man and beast in Chalcolithic Cyprus. Bulletin ofcal BC (Croft 2003, 56–58; Peltenburg et al. 2001, 46), the American Schools of Oriental Research 282/283, 63–79.deer rapidly rose to a position of considerable economic Croft, P. W. 2002. Game management in early prehistoric Cyprus.significance. In the particular circumstances of Cyprus, the In Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of theheavy dependence on deer that developed there came to define International Union of Game Biologists, Limassol, Cyprusan insular pattern of economic behaviour not replicated on 3–7 September 2001. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 48the contemporary mainland (Croft 1991, 63; Wasse 2007, (Supplement), 172–179.61). From an early stage of the Cypro-PPNB through to Croft, P. W. 2003. The animal bones. In E. Peltenburg (ed.)the inception of the Bronze Age in the mid-3rd millennium Lemba Archaeological Project III(1): The Colonisation and 16. Herds lost in time: Animal remains from the Philia-Drakos Site A, Cyprus 137

AGENCY IN THE PRE-POTTERY

NEOLITHIC A

Bill Finlayson

Writing in 2000, Dobres and Robb observed that agency had attributes, even though they may be expressed differentlybecome a buzzword with little debate about what it means by different people. Agency is not faceless or generalised;or how it might be useful, and authors simply making “ad it is mediated by cultural context, history, gender, age,hoc appeals to the concept” (2000, 3), and this still appears lineage, and class. It is embodied, but it is also embedded,to sum up references to agency in the archaeology of the historically situated. Agency is a cultural process which isNeolithic transformation of Southwest Asia. This paper involved in the creation, negotiation and transformationattempts to move this discussion forward as agency theory of both a sense of personhood and collective identities.has great potential for developing the sort of local history The agent does not construct, but is ‘constructed through’that is fundamental to our developing conceptions of the material culture. Hodder (2000, 22) has noted that there isNeolithic transformation. an opposition between descriptions of human ‘behaviour’ There is a tension between those who see agency as and the idea of ‘agency’. Human behaviour is rational andthe fruits of empowered, intentional actions, and those therefore predictable where, for example, people respondwho see the significance of agency lying far more in the to climate change in a logical, rule-like manner. Althoughunintended consequences of actions. The many different rational, it emphasises the animal-like quality that is behindways of viewing agency lead directly to differing opinions optimal foraging theory and environmental determinism.of its utility and purpose, such as the differences between In contrast, agency lies behind human choice, the powerHodder’s perception of agency as pertaining to the in- to act, an informed choice made within a specific context.dividual (1984; 1999) and Barrett’s development of agency It is important that we do not view structure and agenttheory in light of Gidden’s theory of structuration (Giddens as a dichotomy but a duality (Barrett and Fewster 2000).1979; Barrett 1988; 2000). Barrett argues for knowledgeable In a sense this is key to our use of agency theory in theagents who construct their social world while their actions Neolithic transformation where we are often left debatingare conditioned and constrained by that social world. which comes first, whether it be sedentism or cultivation,Agents should be conceived as ‘decentred subjects’ not social change or climate. This chicken and egg style debateindividuals, and “agency refers to the actions of individual resolves within agency as the dialectic between processes.social actors embedded within a broader socio-cultural andecological setting” (Joyce 2000, 71). Fowler (2000) arguesthat Hodder’s 1999 approach to the individual is modernand universalist. Emphasising the individual rather than the The Use of Agency Theory in the Pre-Potterydialectic with structure tends to lead to over-active actors and Neolithic Athe recreation of modern western individuals. Gero (2000) I believe that one of our objectives in studying the Neolithichas criticised the application of the agent as empowered transformation has to be to develop local histories, detailedindividual, the idea that only some people have agency accounts of what is occurring above the level of individualand some have more power than others. Morals, language site, but far below the wide ranging universal models thatand history emerge through society, not as individual are often put forward (e.g. Cauvin 2000). The big narratives142 Bill Finlayson

operate at a high level of abstraction – climate change, the Early Natufian or the European Upper Palaeolithic, theyeconomic processes, the rise of ideologies – and part of the adopted richly symbolic lifestyles. However, as noted bypurpose of studying agency is to escape from these bland Rowley-Conwy, semi-sedentary complex-hunter gatherersabstractions. If we accept that agency is historically specific arise and vanish from the ethnographic record and are notand not a universal process like behaviour, historically an evolutionary stage towards agriculture (2001). We cansituated agents practicing the routines of daily life represent accept that people had agency before the Neolithic, and looka useful way of examining the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A to agency to try to gain insights into the beginnings of the(henceforth PPNA). We can now provide detailed accounts Neolithic transformation.of the processes that took place during the Neolithic Ethnography furnishes us with a generalised context, onetransformation, but our ability to explain these remains which does not provide much scope for change other thanuncertain. The overarching models tend to describe the externally forced. If we use modern analogues, context issymptoms or secondary phenomena (Finlayson 2007) deeply flawed (Finlayson 2009), and we should not assumeand are divorced from a human scale and the detailed that the Kebaran was a modern hunter-gatherer societyarchaeological evidence that is becoming available. People resembling the San; similarly, we should not assume thatare either assumed to react to external stimulate as automata the Natufian resembled North West Coast Indians or thator become subsumed within a process, and the potential of the early Neolithic corresponded to an orientalist visionhuman agency in making choice is denied. Hodder (1990), of traditional farmers. These snap-shot static visions ofRenfrew (2003) and Watkins (2002) all argue that not very the present make unlikely models for the past, and beingmuch happened before the Neolithic, which makes the assembled as a series of opposed social systems, offerinception of the process hard to comprehend. little understanding to the process of transformation. There Watkins (2004) suggests that if biological evolution remains an underlying assumption of some evolutionary(‘nature’) was the primary driving force in early human imperative that leads from one state to another (the band,development, to be replaced by culture in the modern world, tribe, chiefdom, state of Service 1962) generally as anthere must have been a time in the past when the balance adaptive shift programmed by an external force such asshifted. Robb sees this as a flawed argument, observing that climate change. These generalised, non-specific and timelesseven in the Palaeolithic people behaved in cultural ways societies lack the differentiation and variability which appearthat made the physical world “inhabitable and negotiable” so central to most hunter-gatherer societies.(2004, 138). Watkins has argued that a cognitive revolution Through practice, agency has the potential to initiatein the late Epipalaeolithic allowed people for the “first time change. Agent centred approaches allow for internallyto formulate and articulate a ‘world-view’ in which people created social change rather than adaptation to externalcould situate themselves in relation to each other, to their forces. This differs from many models of the Neolithicplace in the world” (2005, 84). This capacity is clearly transformation which refer to the ‘pulling’ and ‘pushing’ ofvital for agency. Although he regards cognitive and cultural external forces, such as climate, population and resources,developments seen in the Neolithic as taking place over the and where people are reduced to automata directly res-last 20,000 years, Watkins believes that until about 10,000 ponding to these external stimulae without the mediationyears ago human minds still worked differently from the of their social structures or choices. Even where peopleway they work now (2005). Such a late revolution appears come into the equation, responding by making ‘rational’unlikely; aspects of continuity from early Epipalaeolithic or behavioural choices, they remain largely invisible andglimpses, such as Ohalo II, to the heights of the early passive in the process. Evolutionary explanations tend toNatufian suggest otherwise, and the continuity from late assume that, given the right circumstances, everything willNatufian to early PPNA and onto PPNB do not suggest any fall into place; moreover, there is an underlying assumptionmoment of such radical change but a gradual process that of development – deduced from hindsight. This leaves noclearly has its naissance in the Upper Palaeolithic. room for human choice. Watkins appears to be describing a symptom of change,stating that the difference at the end of the Epipalaeolithicwas “one critical environmental factor…the social world ofthe permanent, sedentary community” (2005, 87). We can Agency in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Aunderstand this either as until those communities developed, Farming (and cultivation of wild plants) makes demandspeople had no agency, and were indeed entirely subject to in terms of social practice (Bender 1989) to do withadaptation; or that people chose to live in communities, and sedentism and organised storage, and as agriculture devel-that they already had the ability to do this. This is central ops, these changing practices become more onerous withto understanding that much of human cognitive ability land clearance, soil maintenance, ownership, and wateremerged much earlier, in the human revolution, and that provision. Many of these conditions are only nascent inwhere communities had previously become larger, as in the PPNA, but Bender’s underlying issue concerns whether 17. Agency in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A 143

the technology of farming causes social complexity or is a is not only elites (or would be elites) who have agency. Theproduct of complexity. Many of the features associated with assumption that increasingly large and settled communitiestraditional small-scale farming are seen equally in complex have an inevitable evolutionary logic, and that these thenhunter-gatherer societies. Indeed, it has often been argued form the context for change as new mechanisms for copingthat farming can only have arisen from such complex hunter- with such permanent human aggregations become necessary,gatherers (although see Finlayson 2009). Domestication and is problematic. A more fundamental question is why peoplefarming appear in many ways to be symptoms of the social moved into these communities, containing the potential forchange, technologies necessary for allowing people to act increased conflict, more difficulty in conflict resolution,the way they wished. Boyd (2005) has suggested that at the competition over diminishing resources, and so on. Weheart of the Neolithic transformation is a change in the way have no evidence in either the PPNA or PPNB that thesepeople eat; the acquisition of food is a social activity, and communities were being pulled together by an increasinglythat as a consequence the transformation must be examined hierarchical society.in terms of social practice and not generalised strategies. Much of our evidence in the PPNA actually suggests anHis description of the historical and practical knowledge increasing notion of community, collective and corporate,required (organisation, distribution and consumption) makes and perhaps we can see here a period of subsumptionagency vital to the transformation. of the individual that is very different from the fairly Material culture is central to expressing and constructing individualistic society of some hunter-gatherers, and thatagency. In the PPN there is a burgeoning material vocab- such a reduction in individuality may have been a necessaryulary, and the developing use of architecture that we see part of increased co-residency. Shanks and Tilley (1987)during the early Neolithic clearly added to the context discuss the importance of symbolic contexts in terms ofin which embodied actors reproduced and changed their individuality, and this too may provide a link with what issocieties. Watkins refers to the developing settlements as happening in the increasing material symbolism present in“theatres of memory” (2004), an important concept that he the Neolithic. Their observation that “meaning is precarious;interprets in terms of external symbolic storage. He does its reproduction may result in its reconstitution” (1987, 74)not continue the use of his metaphor of theatre by linking is important. Despite the increased visibility of materialit to the actors and says he wants to “duck the question” of culture in the Neolithic, we should not assume a single setwhy people were choosing to live in larger, more sedentary of meanings across time and space. There are highly visiblesettlements (2004, 98). The difficulty with this approach is differences in material culture within the early Neolithicthat it risks seeing the ‘external symbolic storage’ created world of Southwest Asia, between major geographicalthrough architecture as just that, external; a material resource provinces (e.g. the use of naturalistic images in the Upperto be controlled and not part of the dialectic of agency. The Euphrates region compared to the use of more abstractidea of “literally constructing new worlds of the imagination images and greater interest in skulls in the southern Levant),that they could inhabit” (Watkins 2004, 105) appears to as well as considerable inter-site variation within theserepresent a case beyond hyper-agency and intentionality, and large regions. We need to be wary of assuming a uniformdespite his recognition of the long Epipalaeolithic ‘prelude’, pattern of behaviour because we know what will happenWatkins appears to deny the historical context in which next in terms of the gradual sharing of an agriculturalpeople were acting. It implies a greater degree of complete package through the later Neolithic. We should avoidknowledge about the world than an agent is likely to have. interpreting actions through hindsight, as in descriptionsBy ducking the question, Watkins’ powerful ideas regarding of ‘proto-agriculture’ or seeing the PPNB as the intendedarchitecture lose their potential for explanation. consequence of the architectural beginnings made in the The culturally negotiated concept of individuality appears PPNA and Natufian. Agency will have performed in eachlikely to have been in considerable flux over the period locale within the local historically specific context, pro-when communities grow more settled and larger. Much of ducing a highly variable mosaic of interacting communities.the debate regarding agency in the Neolithic has assumed We easily fall into the trap of evolutionary imperatives, andthe presence of hyper-agents or aggrandisers pushing social our literature is full of assumptions about logical patternschange, such as Hayden’s model (2004). If one wants to of development. Evolution and development are built intoavoid the trap of evolutionary imperatives, it may be more the way we approach our study (Shanks and Tilley 1987),appropriate to understand the notion of the unintended but such simplistic models tend to collapse in the face ofconsequences of action. This is not to deny intentionality to the evidence, which shows that the Neolithic does not ariseactors, but people in the Natufian and early Neolithic did not from an increasingly Neolithic Early Natufian but from anconsciously set out to develop the fully developed agrarian increasingly un-Neolithic Late Natufian, and that a villagelifestyle of the late Neolithic and onwards. The significance farming society arises from the collapse of PPNB mega-sitesof ‘aggrandisers’ depends as much on those “motivated to that do not herald proto-urban organisation.follow them” (Clark 2000, 99) as on the aggrandiser, and it Burial evidence appears to represent a direct way to144 Bill Finlayson

approach people. Wright (1978) used Binford’s ethnographic while at Dhra’ burials seem to be placed around the outsideapproach (1971) to identify a generalised situation from the of structures or placed though their walls (Finlayson et al.ethnographic present, arguing that burial data from el-Wad 2003). A focus on these practices within sites and betweenprovided evidence for social ranking developed to maintain close neighbours is potentially more important than lookingorder with increasing population and sedentism. His approach at gross differences in symbolic forms between the northernhas been criticised by both Belfer-Cohen (1995) and Boyd and southern Levant, or by ascribing the importance of these(2001), and much is based on the idea that a skeleton is an practices to their subsequent development in the PPNB withindividual, and that the burial of this individual reflects his its rich repertoire of skull deformation and plastered skulls.or her living self. As Boyd observes, not only was Wright’s The significance in the PPNA is what people were doing inapproach empirically flawed, but mortuary practices may the PPNA, and variation within broad themes suggests bothnot reflect social categories, instead being evidence for that there was a widely held set of beliefs and knowledge,“social practices in which the living and the dead come and that different communities were able to reproduce andtogether” (Boyd 2001, 197). Boyd argues that this requires create ideas of identity by acting within these structures.us to abandon the quest for generalised models, and to move One of the important aspects of ritual is that the dramato studying practice and agency, a path suggested by Kuijt involved creates powerful social forces. Ritual can servein his consideration of PPNA mortuary practice when he as a way of reproducing the corporate or collective identityproposed that it is a “form of public action, a social drama (although there is the potential for such powerful situationsdesigned and constructed by the living, often to elicit com- to be appropriated by emerging elites). Variations in ritualmunity participation” (Kuijt 1996, 315). Both Verhoeven can also serve to express identity within communities(2002) and Kuijt have argued that secondary burials in the (potentially within ‘households’ and lineages) and betweenPPN were planned in advance and were extremely powerful communities. The variations we see within the PPNAin reinforcing communal, collective identity, with Verhoeven world are not simply indicative of the presence of differentsuggesting that primary inhumations in architecture in the traditions but of the expression of identity.Pottery Neolithic (henceforth PN) may have been intended to As noted above, Watkins has used burial to look at the ideaemphasise emerging individual households. They believe that of ‘home’ as part of his consideration of Wilson’s analysisburial rituals are important for reproducing social structure of the significance of architecture (Wilson 1988; Watkinsand providing a social regulatory function. Kuijt in particular 1990). This has ramifications into ideas of household, which(1996) has argued that burial practices in the late Natufian can be used as a means of discussing small-scale societiesand PPNA indicate deliberate attempts to prevent or limit the and considering the different types of people who make upemergence of hierarchical power, a resistance that continued a household while avoiding family or other kin-based termsinto the Middle PPNB. that are hard to see archaeologically. However, within the In the PPNA there are both single primary and collective PPNA we need to be careful using such terms and referringsecondary burials. The partial burial of bodies and the to structures as dwellings. At WF16 the interior of structuresmanipulation of bones by adding and subtracting different appears small, and the presence of visibly marked burialsskeletal parts may all suggest that the burials we see are and ground stone tools makes these unlikely candidates fornot about individuals. This has suggested to some that ‘homes’. At Dhra’ structures vary in purpose, with the mainthe underlying ideas may have been about lineage and structures either being granaries or being dominated by built-possibly the beginning of ideas of ‘home’ (e.g. Watkins in food processing tools (Kuijt and Finlayson 2009). While1990). Watkins (2004) argues that the treatment of bodies, we may assume that some of these buildings functionedespecially skulls, was part of the way people symbolised in part as sleeping areas at certain times during the coursethe relationships between the living and the dead. However, of the year, there is no evidence that this was a primaryas a development of Kuijt’s thoughts, burial may not function. Furthermore, given the absence of internal hearthsbe about death and ancestors but about living agency from most structures and the evidence for much activitywithin the present, i.e. the people who are manipulating outside the structures in areas conventionally described asthe remains. The more important relationships that were middens (Mithen et al. in press), we can assume that muchbeing symbolised were to do with the living through the day-to-day living occurred outdoors and we need to avoidpractices of burial as an ongoing performance. That said, using the “house as a proxy … where archaeologists write ofmediation with the spirit world can be an act of authority, excavating the household where they really mean they haveand modifying ritual practices is potentially an important excavated buildings and spaces that form part of domesticway of creating change. In some ways PPNA burials suggest life” (Hendon 2004, 275). There appears to be a huge amounta lack of strong individual personhood in society. In southern of variation within PPNA architecture, with a constant andJordan, at Wadi Faynan Site 16 (henceforth WF16), there is a active rebuilding and modification to structures.clear association between sub-floor burials within structures The publicly visible granaries at Dhra’ may representand built-in ground stone tools (Finlayson and Mithen 2007) an ideal of an unconcealed resource available for sharing, 17. Agency in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A 145

enforcing the social status quo within a changing environ- within the process. Agency enables variation by focusingment. The granaries indicate intentionality and planning. on differences between cultural rules and actual practices.There is considerable work effort put into these structures, The study of agency allows us to explore the meaning ofbut even more there is a commitment to place, to the variation. Agency allows us to avoid having to rely oncultivation of wild plants and to the storage of a harvest abstract processes as the driving forces of change. Climate(Kuijt and Finlayson 2009). This commitment to place may may lead to change, but it is humans who select responses,also be reflected in the built-in food processing tools and, using their existing world to make the new one. The PPNAat WF16, in the burial rites. The continuing architectural arises from a Late Natufian context. There is no doubt thatfluidity may indicate that there was a counterbalancing Holocene climate conditions provided new opportunitiesdesire to reproduce at least a fictitiously mobile society, to which PPNA people reacted in a Late Natufian/PPNAproviding a socially needed ambiguity and flexibility. manner, unintentionally creating the emerging NeolithicPractice as formed by agency need not coincide with ideal structures and contexts by transforming their existing worldstructures, and people are clearly working within and – theatres not of memory, but of practice.manipulating an existing context, unaware, of course, thatsuch cultivation practices and storage may in the long termlead to domestication and a far greater degree of sedentism.PPNA middens are also created public spaces that do Referencesnot seem to limit movement and visibility. Space is kept Barrett, J. 1988. Fields of discourse: Reconstituting a socialopen and public in the PPNA. Space is created by people archaeology. Current Anthropology 7(3), 5–16.and reflects intentionality through the creation of socially Barrett, J. C. 2000. A thesis on agency. In M.-A. Dobres andmeaningful spaces – the stage people move through. J. E. Robb (eds) Agency in Archaeology, 61–68. London, Hodder argues that the increased materialisation assoc- Routledge.iated with the Neolithic and sedentism allowed for the Barrett, J. C. and K. J. Fewster 2000. Intimacy and structuralmaterialisation of social structure, making it objectified transformation: Giddens and archaeology. In C. Holtorfand therefore more readily modified, and that people were and H. Karlsson (eds) Philosophy and Archaeological Prac- tice: Perspectives for the 21st century, 25–38. Göteborg:more self-aware, making agency more apparent: “This shift Bricoleur.towards a centring of human agency comes about as the Belfer-Cohen, A. 1995. Rethinking social stratification in theinverse of the entanglement process. Material entanglement Natufian culture: The evidence from burials. In S. Campbellcreates the possibility for greater human intervention and A. Green (eds) The Archaeology of Death in the Ancientthat lies behind the processes of storage, sedentism and Near East, 9–16. Oxford, Oxbow.domestication” (2004, 51). Hodder tends to argue from a Bender, B. 1989. The roots of inequality. In D. Miller, M. Rowlandslate PPNB/PN perspective, and there are problems with this and C. Tilley (eds) Domination and Resistance, 83–95. London,argument as the processes of developing storage, sedentism Unwin.and domestication began thousands of years earlier. Binford, L. R. 1971. Mortuary practices: Their study and their From the apparently highly public granaries, external potential. In J. A. Brown (ed.) Approaches to the Socialhearths and small interior floor spaces we can suggest Dimensions of Mortuary Practice, 6–29. Washington DC, Society for American Archaeology.that much of the standard interpretation of architecture as Boyd, B. 2001. The Natufian burials from el-Wad, Mount Carmel:creating barriers and privacy has not occurred within the Beyond issues of social differentiation. Journal of the IsraelPPNA. There is no evidence for hidden storage. Hunter- Prehistoric Society 31, 185–200.gatherer practices, such as sharing of foods, remain possible. Boyd, B. 2005 . Transforming food practices in the EpipalaeolithicThe fluidity of architectural forms suggests that even if and Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In J. Clarke (ed.) Archaeologicalsettlements became more permanent, the architecture was Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation ofused to maintain a connection to a more mobile way of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, 106–112. Levantlife. Supplementary Series 2. Oxford, Oxbow Books and Council for British Research in the Levant. Cauvin, J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Translated from the French by T. Watkins.Conclusions Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Clark, J. E. 2000. Towards a better explanation of hereditaryAgency theory provides a way for us to free ourselves inequality: A critical assessment of natural and historic humanfrom generalised bland modeling and make full use of agents. In M.-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb (eds) Agency inour diverse and fine-grained archaeological data from Archaeology, 92–112. London, Routledge.meticulous excavation to write local histories. These not Dobres, M.-A. and J. E. Robb 2000. Agency in archaeology:only allow us to create the building blocks for larger scale Paradigm or platitude? In M.-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb (eds)accounts, but also enable us to consider the role of people Agency in Archaeology, 3–17. London, Routledge.146 Bill Finlayson

UNDERSTANDING SYMBOLS: PUTTING MEANING

INTO THE PAINTED POTTERY OF PREHISTORIC NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

Stuart Campbell

Like several other contributors to this volume, some of In the past, the painted decoration of this general phasethe first classes I took as an undergraduate were taught by has primarily been analysed and interpreted typologicallyEddie Peltenburg and, again in common with many others, and chronologically. Decoration has been used to defineI have worked on projects with him in both Cyprus and cultural or chronological groupings, and it has beenSyria over many years since then. It would be difficult to sub-divided into many individual motifs which haveeither quantify or overestimate the extent to which I have been examined for their symmetry. Similarity in motifbeen influenced by him. It is both a pleasure and an honour assemblages has explicitly or implicitly been used to lookto make a contribution to this volume. at group identity and differentiation. Little attention has The painted ceramics of the late Neolithic in northern been paid, however, to what was actually meant by theMesopotamia are some of the most elaborate and attractive symbolism of individual motifs or combinations of motifsdecorated pottery in prehistory. The overwhelming majority and the degree of sophistication or convention in theof the decoration is geometric, sometimes with what seems messages that the decoration could convey, although thislike an endless parade of motifs and subtle variations. Rare is key to understanding how decoration was both used andexamples stand out as very different, with much more adopted. In other words, form has been prioritised at thenaturalistic decoration depicting people, animals, structures expense of meaning.and artifacts in scenes whose power and significance seems Although it will remain impossible to comprehend fullyto us to be much more immediately recognisable. This exact meanings from prehistoric material, it is perhapspaper argues that much of this decoration, both abstract and possible to gain insights into the types of meaning thatfigurative, carried meaning and that these meanings endowed were present and something of how they functioned withinthe ceramics with a social agency of their own (cf Gell a wider system of symbolic communication. The contrasts1998). Understanding the ways in which the agency could be and links between the predominant abstract, geometricexercised can provide a key to understanding how society of decoration and the much rarer, naturalistic decoration canlate Neolithic northern Mesopotamia was constituted. act as a powerful tool to gain conceptual leverage on this Over a period from just before 6000 cal BC to a little wider system.after 5000 cal BC, the pottery of north Mesopotamia is Throughout the period, most of the decoration on thecharacterised by extensive and sometimes elaborate painted painted pottery is geometric and abstract (e.g. Fig. 18.1).decoration. Although it has traditionally been divided Here I wish to explore one possible way of understandinginto different cultures or phases, the Samarran, Halaf and the choices, combination and meanings of the geometricalUbaid, it may be more profitable to think of it as a broad and apparently abstract motifs as symbols that, at times atceramic phase characterised by that domination of painted least, had explicit meanings, both individually and in groups.decoration, reflecting both a stylistic expression that came The much rarer examples of decoration with depictions ofinto use c. 6200 cal BC and declined c. 4,750 cal BC, “l’ère naturalistic scenes contrast strongly with this predominantde la céramique peinte” (Huot 1994, 63) and the social geometric decoration. In archaeological publications, themilieu within which it had meaning and significance. two categories of decoration have generally been considered148 Stuart Campbell

separately, with the more naturalistic depictions often communicated. Decoration on pots doubtless conveyedseparated out from the rest of the ceramics as prize finds. I information in different ways and at multiple levels.wish instead to explore the way in which the two types of Different aspects of the decoration might possess verydecoration may be understood as different aspects of the different significance. Thus, not only have various an-same system of communication with a complementary role alytical approaches been taken; they may also help us toin pre-urban social interaction and integration. reconstruct different types of meaning. Hole, Bernbeck Although it is certainly true that there may have been and Nieuwenhuyse have explored the significance of theconsiderable variations in both time and space, for simplicity structure of the decorative scheme (Hole 1984; BernbeckI will make little effort here to incorporate regional or 1994; 1999; Nieuwenhuyse 2007). Elements of composition,chronological subtleties. Most of my examples come from such as symmetry and repetition, may have been importantthe pottery manufactured and decorated in the Halaf style. (e.g. von Wickede 1986; Melville 2005). The analysis ofThis is largely due to convenience. individual motifs themselves has a particularly detailed There have, of course, been other approaches to this history of study (e.g. LeBlanc and Watson 1973; Davidsonchallenge. Mallowan famously outlined a sequence of 1977; Campbell 1992; Irving 2001). Each approach maydevelopment for the bucrania motif, running from natural- be seen as complementary to the others by focussing onistic to highly abstract, and argued that a similar process different aspects of the design. However, all of these studiesof stylisation may have occurred with other motifs as well have emphasised typologies and generalised structure.(Mallowan and Cruickshank Rose 1935, 154–165). Where Although meaning has been considered, it has been treatedthe complete process of schematisation is not attested, this as a rather general concept, often in a manner drawingis difficult to demonstrate for many motifs and, in any case, implicitly or explicitly on similar approaches to the analysisneed not correlate with significance or meaning. Even where of style (Conkey and Hastorf 1990). These approaches canmotifs represent abstractions of what was once naturalistic, certainly help us understand both aspects of identity andthey need not have deeply symbolic meanings; for example, the ways in which a potter conceptualised and executedthe suggestion that has been made many times that cross- a design. They tell us less about what meanings thesehatching may originate as an attempt to depict basketry elements may have carried. Although they have shed(e.g. Mallowan and Cruickshank Rose 1935, 153; Wengrow light on important aspects of the decoration of pottery in2001). If this suggestion has merit, the link might be deeply northern Mesopotamia, they have not generally been partmeaningful or it might be relatively trivial – or it might point of an effort to construct a general theory of what decorationto meanings that were shared between different media. meant and how it functioned as a mechanism of social There was probably not a simple way that meaning was communication. 18. Understanding symbols: Putting meaning into painted pottery 149

Schmandt-Besserat has recently suggested that com- motifs. Some types of decoration, such as bucrania, canpositions of pre-4th millennium painted pottery focussed be considered in both categories as it is used along aon filling space according to rules of aesthetics, whether spectrum from naturalistic to stylised. Furthermore, therethe compositions used geometric or naturalistic decoration is little evidence that the prehistoric potters maintained a(2007, 5–22). Although she acknowledges that prehistoric rigid division. Almost all pots with representational designsdecoration carried meaning, she suggests that it was also have elements of geometric decoration, sometimesgeneralised rather than something which could be complex used to frame naturalistic scenes but perhaps often used toand dynamic. She draws on parallels with language, reinforce the fact that the pot remains a pot by retaining theespecially written language, to suggest that scenes are only most typical geometric elements, such as a band around theexplicitly narrative in the 4th and 3rd millennia. Thus “... vessel rim. It may be profitable to explore a more integratedpreliterate pottery composition formed an all-over pattern approach where naturalistic and geometric decorations aremeant to be apprehended as a whole, or globally, those of not seen as completely separate.the literate period were to be viewed analytically” (2007, “Visual representation refers both to the act of portraying,24) and “Preliterate pottery paintings could only evoke an symbolizing or presenting the likeness of something, andidea” (2007, 25). In contrast, I would argue that it is not to the use of the resultant image “to ‘re-present’, imagine,that Neolithic decoration could not support a narrative but describe, define, understand, fix, construct, organise,that the narrative needed to be deciphered and explained; regulate and even transform the world as we perceive it”that the process of extracting and recreating meaning would (Skeates 2007, 199). Given an appropriate social context,have been a process of social interaction. both geometric and naturalistic motifs can function in Nieuwenhuyse has recently proposed such a theory (2007, this way. The difference between the abstract image206–212). His interpretation emphasises structured sets and the naturalistic example can be one of degree – theof oppositions between bounded-unbounded, naturalistic- representation in the former case may be more formalised,abstract, repetitive-discontinuous designs. Designs with more embedded in convention and also potentially hidden.bounded, continuous and geometrical attributes are suggested The key constituent of the abstract image may not beto have had an ‘outward’ social orientation while the obvious, with less meaningful elaboration hiding the moreunbounded, discontinuous and ‘figurative’ styles were significant core that delivers the real meaning. Thesedirected ‘inward’ at local and domestic activities and meanings can be overt, but they can also be obscured andmeanings. While there is much to embrace in this proposal, elaborated by the addition of further elements. This placesit should also perhaps be noted that the interpretation of a great deal of emphasis on the social context in whichpainted, naturalistic decoration on pottery depends heavily decoration was created and displayed.on the interpretation of representational depictions on other The range of meanings encoded in the decoration of amedia, such as wall paintings, seals, figurines and applied vessel was undoubtedly complex, and its comprehensiondecoration on pots (Nieuwenhuyse 2007, 210). Comparisons was equally certainly dependent on the observer. Moreacross media have been neglected in the past, so this broadly, the meaning would have been created by theinclusive approach is very welcome. It does not necessarily setting – the occasion of consumption of food and drink,follow, however, that the same rules and audiences were the participants and their interaction. The meanings wouldobserved in all cases; painted pottery may have had different have emerged from social discourse (cf Bernbeck 1999),considerations. However, the discussion presented here is not both spoken and unspoken. Some elements of the meaningincompatible with Nieuwenhuyse’s proposals. would certainly have operated on the level of familiarity In the rare cases where naturalistic or figurative decor- and identification, simply on the level of ‘is my potteryation is present on the late Neolithic pottery of north like your pottery?’. Other meanings might well have beenMesopotamia, it has often been interpreted in isolation. A associated with function, both of the vessel and the way itrange of interpretations have been put forward for different was used, and were possibly reinforced by variables suchexamples. In contrast to the geometric decoration, it has as types of food and cooking methods.usually been assumed that figurative designs did carry However, it is possible to argue that the combination ofimportant social meanings. Thus representational designs vessel shape, structure of the decoration and the particularhave been identified as carrying ritual meaning, including motifs might carry more explicit meanings, perhaps assoc-the depiction of deities and supernatural beings (Ippolitoni- iated with specific concepts and narratives. The clearestStrika 1990; 1996; Breniquet 1992; Forest 1996; Cauvin indication of this comes from the exceptional vessel/figurine2000). In a stimulating analysis, Garfinkel interpreted a from the Halaf levels of Yarim Tepe II (Fig. 18.2). Thisseries of human figures as dancers (2003). figurine was found in a pit, broken in pieces and associated Despite their immediate impact on the observer, it is with burning (Merpert and Munchaev 1987). It seemsprobably a mistake to treat the naturalistic designs as possible that it had actually been treated in a way that iscompletely separate from the more general geometric analogous to human funerary treatment, which also some-150 Stuart Campbell

times has elements of burial, fragmentation and burning which had been added with particular purpose and to add(Campbell 2008). The removable head was not found with particular meanings to the figure. They were both relevant tothe rest of the pot, perhaps because it was made of organic the person represented and conveyed additional informationmaterial or perhaps because it was deliberately separated that was probably quite explicit in intent and meaning. Infrom the body, a practice which could also parallel the particular, the significant motifs are the rosette or floweroccasional special treatment given to human skulls. It does depicted in the navel and the dotting that fills the exaggeratednot seem contentious to argue that it was a figurine with high pubic area. Furthermore, although the overall artefact is verysymbolic value, which had a use in specific rituals in which naturalistic, there are no feet or legs. This is not simply apresumably both the ability to fill the figurine/vessel with technical requirement as a roughly contemporary figurine/liquid and its removable head would have had a significant vessel at Domuztepe has very well modelled legs and feetrole. It is probable that it represented a specific mythical or (Campbell 2004). On the Yarim Tepe II figurine, instead ofsupernatural being who would have figured in narratives of feet, there is a flange with a row of upturned triangle motifsimportance in systems of society and belief. running around it. Assuming the figurine/vessel did have an important These non-naturalistic elements are particularly inter-status, it follows that the decoration on this vessel is not esting because they also occur in the geometric decorationrandom but had been selected for very specific reasons that on pots that otherwise would not appear particularly unusual.may have amplified the meanings attached to the person Although all the elements do occur in isolation, they areor being represented. Some of the decoration is broadly used in the same combinations with surprising frequency.naturalistic, such as the hair and possible armlets, and may Rosettes probably occur most frequently on Halaf potterybe associated with the woman depicted in the vessel or the in association with areas filled with dots, either in alternaterole that she performed. The elements of the figurine/vessel panels or chequer board patterns. This repeats the associationthat are particularly relevant here are the ones that aren’t of the rosette or flower with dots in the pubic triangle ofobviously naturalistic although it is possible that they were the figurine/vessel at Yarim Tepe II. Strikingly, one of theassociated with body paint or tattooing. These are motifs main vessel types that often has alternating panels of rosettes 18. Understanding symbols: Putting meaning into painted pottery 151

Fig. 18.5 The ‘dancing ladies’ motif on the interior rim of bowls from Khirbet Garsour (original illustration by the author).

and dots along the interior of the rim also has a flanged spectrum running from naturalistic to stylised can be observedbase which can be decorated with up-turned triangle motifs in other motifs such as mouflon horns and birds which are also(Fig. 18.3). Examples can be cited from both Yarim Tepe II most commonly integrated with abstract motifs. Similarly,and Umm Qseir in north-east Syria (Tsuneki and Miyake the distinctive motifs that appear round the interior rims of1998, fig. 26, nos 1, 9). I would suggest that the pots with both Samarran and early Halaf pottery and are generallythe same combination of motifs that we see on the Yarim known as ‘dancing ladies’ are often seen in various stagesTepe II figurine/vessel may either draw on precisely the of stylisation (Fig. 18.5). It is possible that the ultimate levelsame meanings or even represent the same woman, whether of stylisation of this motif is the simple swags that are thesupernatural or mythological, in a much more abstract form. most frequent decoration on the same part of the vessel onThe decoration needs to be understood as partaking in the late Halaf pottery (e.g. Fig. 18.1, a). While meaning mightsame mythologies or narratives as the being represented have been replaced by convention during the long process ofby the figurine. abstraction and schematisation, I would suggest that it is more While this example is outstanding, there are other likely that the meaning was retained but no longer requiredindications that some motifs may carry specific meanings. the full form to be depicted or perhaps even understood.The most obvious is the well known bucrania (Mallowan and The process of abstraction may well have taken other moreCruickshank Rose 1935, 154–165). Although the bulls’ horns naturalistic depictions and hidden them in geometric motifsare often highly schematic, they still appear on a very wide whose symbolism cannot be accessed by archaeologists butrange of Halaf pottery in a form recognisable to us, almost may have been no less potent by being obscured.always embedded in otherwise geometric decoration (Fig. This pattern of encoded meanings can possibly be18.4). Although they have received less attention, a similar extended further. Some of the classic Halaf patterns are152 Stuart Campbell

made up of dots (see the rather different discussion in decoded and used to convey social narratives – discoursesNieuwenhuyse 2007, 207). Dots, however, tend to occur that could link events and episodes in socially significantonly in particular places, sometimes in combination with ways, and that encapsulated ways of understanding theother geometric motifs but particularly in association with world, society and the place of the individual or groupdepictions of animals and humans (e.g. Figs 18.4, 18.6 within it. These narratives might embody folklore, dreamsand 18.7, a). The appearance of dots on the Yarim Tepe and the everyday experience of the world; frequently theyII figurine/vessel is again relevant. In all these cases, the might have mythological or supernatural elements.dots appear as a secondary or background element. They Because of the degree of abstraction in most of themay be adding meaning or value to the primary element, decoration, meaning may often have been relatively fixed,perhaps a concept of animation or drawing attention to it as imposing a high level of convention, so that it might havea major actor in some otherwise hidden narrative. Abstract been best used to relate established themes. Elements mightbut meaningful decoration need not always derive from a also be juxtaposed to challenge existing narratives andnaturalistic original. create new variants, but this understanding might only be Although there are hints that suggest the significance of possible when there was also a personal narrative to explainsome motifs, most of the meanings must inevitably escape what might otherwise have been simply odd. Certainlyarchaeologists. Nonetheless, based on the examples cited, the use of conventional elements would have constrainedit seems possible that much of the apparently abstract, the introduction of novel subjects and limited the scopegeometric decoration may have had more or less complex for new narratives to be introduced. Abstract, geometricmeanings. On one level, pottery decoration may simply motifs therefore may have functioned to reinforce or modifyhave been about the familiar (i.e. isochrestic meanings; see social conventions, not to initiate new understandings ofSackett 1990). On another level, explicit meanings could be the world. 18. Understanding symbols: Putting meaning into painted pottery 153

Fig. 18.8 Depiction of houses on a Halaf pot from Domuztepe (photo by the author; decoration is partially reconstructed based onrepeating elements).

A possibly similar context of use can be seen in the may have functioned to introduce new social narratives,highly decorated chichi beer bowls in Ecuadorian Amazon, and to replace and extend existing social conventions. Thethe creation and decoration of which are critical aspects of depiction of naturalistic scenes, including people, animalsa wife’s role (Bowser 2000). The abstract decoration on the and places, might have been associated with control.vessels represents features of mythology, including spirits, Representational images can be powerful and dangerous,animals, plants and stars, as well as family relationships and the vessels carrying these depictions may have beenand the connection between a woman and her dream world. highly active social agents in themselves.“The key symbols of female identity in Achuar and Quichua In time, as the new narratives themselves becamebelief systems – manioc, pottery clay, garden soil, and the conventional, the naturalistic depictions had the potential togarden spirit – are linked through language, myth, and song become more abstract and perhaps eventually be absorbed. . . On a daily basis, a woman’s act of serving chicha in a in the much larger and more common category of abstract,pottery bowl to her husband or brother makes reference to stylised or geometric designs.this cluster of key symbols” (Bowser 2000, 228). Within The power of innovation may have been significant. Notthis framework, designs are deeply personal and individual. only may the depiction of naturalistic scenes have createdInnovations and interpretation of designs are an active topic powerful objects, but it could also have been a directof discussion by both men and women. challenge to conventional social narratives. As a powerful In the prehistoric pottery of Mesopotamia, extensive mechanism through which convention could be challenged,naturalistic decoration is unusual. As already discussed, it is it might have constituted a threat to established cosmologiesmost often absorbed into the geometric patterns on vessels. and social order. Consequently, its use might only have beenThe more striking examples of naturalistic decoration are open to certain individuals acting in particular contexts.very different. Not only is the design more obviously While naturalistic motifs are generally very rarerepresentational, but the structure is usually much more throughout the period, there is one substantial context atopen (e.g. Fig. 18.7). Large areas of the vessel can be filled Domuztepe where they are remarkably common. This is theand different naturalistic elements are usually combined to ‘Ditch’, which is not in fact a single feature as the namecreate scenes, such as the combination of houses, birds and suggests but a long series of linear cuts and re-cuts along antrees in Fig. 18.8. axis of c. 30 m. Although the activity may have continued While some of this might simply be style relating to an for well over 100 years, most of the pottery in the refuseindividual potter, perhaps demonstrating technical ability, that made up the fill of the ‘Ditch’ seems to be Halaf IaI propose that more often its function may have been to in date. What is remarkable is the quantity of naturalisticintroduce new types of meanings and new narratives which decoration, to the extent that it actually dominates the potterycould not be created using the more stylised geometric assemblage. While examples occur with apparently headlessmotifs. Because these narratives were new, they had to be bodies (Campbell 2004), dancing ladies (Campbell 2008, fig.made much more explicit. Naturalistic decoration therefore 2, no. 4), animals and many other motifs, it is the depictions154 Stuart Campbell

Geometric/Abstract Naturalistic/representational Common Very rare and exceptional. Used in social contexts with active set of meanings Used in social contexts with active set of meanings that that could relate to personal histories, storytelling could relate to personal histories, storytelling and/or and/or mythologies. mythologies. Encoding of meanings is inflexible and with a Draws on pre-existing encoding of meanings by use of framework of convention. some geometric decoration but not constrained by it. Can be used to modify or challenge old narratives Potential to create completely new narratives and through innovative juxtaposition but within existing meanings. framework. Reinforces existing framework. Potential to challenge and transform existing framework. May suggest common cosmologies and shared social Understanding may be very contextual and local to narratives within area of use, which is sometimes very particular regions in which new narratives appear. wide. Table 18.1 Roles of geometric and naturalistic decoration in conveying meaning.

that show houses with trees standing between them and more verbal interpretation, and possibly reflecting the intentusually birds perched on the roofs (Fig. 18.8) that are the of individuals or small corporate groups to introduce newmost common, with perhaps 20 or more vessels carrying ways of understanding the world.variants of this scene. We need to excavate more extensively to fully understandthe contemporary pottery at Domuztepe. However, it seems Referencesprobable that the pottery in the ‘Ditch’ represents a specific Bernbeck, R. 1994. Die Auflösung der Häuslichen Produktions-context of use, the refuse from which was disposed of in one weise: das Beispiel Mesopotamiens. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer.location, perhaps because it was in some way ‘dangerous’ Bernbeck, R. 1999. Structure strikes back: Intuitive meaningsor ‘powerful’ and needed to be controlled after its use and of ceramics from Qale Rostam, Iran. In J. E. Robb (ed.)breakage. This may suggest a particular domain within Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, 90–111.which new social narratives were being advanced or an Occasional Paper 26. Carbondale, Center for Archaeologicalauthority which was using pottery decoration as an active Investigations.agent of change. Bowser, B. J. 2000. From pottery to politics: An ethnoarch- If the interpretation proposed above is correct, we can see aeological study of political factionalism, ethnicity, andthe painted decoration on the pottery of the late Neolithic domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal ofin north Mesopotamia from a new perspective, as part of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3), 219–248.a system of communication where vessels gained agency Breniquet, C. 1992. A propos du vase halafien de la Tombe G2 de Tell Arpachiyah. Iraq 54, 69–78.that was created and deciphered through social narratives. Campbell, S. 1992. Culture, Chronology and Change in the LaterThis gives the ceramics a significant and active role in the Neolithic of North Mesopotamia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,way in which society functioned and the ways that social University of Edinburgh.conventions were conveyed and enforced. Although both Campbell, S. 2004. Domuztepe 2004 excavation season. Anatolianabstract, geometric decoration and representational designs Archaeology 10, 4–6.functioned in ways that were closely related, they may have Campbell, S. 2008. Feasting and dancing: Gendered representationrepresented opposite ends of the same system, with the and pottery in later Mesopotamian prehistory. In D. Bolgerability to convey different types of meanings (Table 18.1). (ed.) Gender through Time in the Ancient Near East, 53–76.By being more standardised and representing accepted Lanham (MD), AltaMira.cosmologies, the stylised, geometric motifs may have been Cauvin, J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins ofmeaningful over much wider regions. While this correlates Agriculture. Translated from the French by T. Watkins. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.with the wide spread of certain motif combinations, such Conkey, M. W. and C. A. Hastorf (eds) 1990. The Uses of Style inas the association of flowers and dots or the appearance of Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.‘dancing ladies’, it also poses the question of the extent Davidson, T. E. 1977. Regional Variation within the Halafto which stylistic similarities in pottery decoration reflect Ceramic Tradition. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University ofshared social narratives and mythologies. If the more Edinburgh.naturalistic decoration was used to convey new narratives, it Forest, J.-D. 1996. Mesopotamie: l’apparition de l’Etat VIIe–IIIemay have been much more local in impact, perhaps requiring millénaires. Paris, Méditerranée. 18. Understanding symbols: Putting meaning into painted pottery 155

GENDER AND SOCIAL COMPLEXITY IN

PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC CYPRUS

Diane Bolger

All narratives of the past are gendered, whether consciously generic interpretation of early anthropomorphic figurinesor not. Without explicitly considering gender, however, as symbols of female fertility and/or motherhood. Such awe are more likely to base our interpretations of past narrow view constrains our ability to appreciate the complexsocieties upon unmediated assumptions reflecting modern relationships between gender, the body and social identitywestern beliefs and practices. Not only does this distort our in the Cypriot past by ignoring other gender categoriesunderstanding of men’s and women’s roles and relations (such as male, ambiguous and dual-sexed) and by limitingin the remote past, but it legitimises their normative status women’s economic and social roles, as well as their bodilyin contemporary society. The present paper is dedicated experiences, to their biological capacity for reproduction.to Eddie Peltenburg’s long-standing interest in the social, It also fails to acknowledge that gender in many societiespolitical and economic development of early societies is a much more sophisticated construct than a simple male/in the ancient Near East, particularly in Cyprus, as well female polarity. Images of male as well as female bodies areas his concern with interpreting archaeological evidence present in the island’s Neolithic and Chalcolithic repertoires,within particular historical and stratigraphic contexts. I shall as are dual-sexed and ambiguously sexed examples (Fig.begin by looking at some of the ways in which traditional 19.1; for a range of types, see illustrations in Dikaios 1953narratives of the past have served to limit our understanding and 1961; and in Peltenburg et al. 1991; 1998; and 2003).of gender, identity and the sexual division of labour during Given the overt sexual symbolism of some of the figurines,the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of the island. I shall they are likely to have had as much to do with sexualitythen consider some of the interfaces between gender and as fertility or birth. There is also evidence to suggest thatsocial complexity during the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. some figurines depicted various stages of male and femaleBy examining evidence for gender relations through time, lifecycles, perhaps marking critical transformations inand interpreting those changes within specific contextual gender identities throughout an individual’s life (Bolgerframeworks, it is possible to move beyond universalist 2003, chap. 4).assumptions to a more nuanced understanding of social Gender archaeology over the past ten to fifteen yearsdevelopment among the island’s early prehistoric and has been highly critical of binary categories of sex andprotohistoric communities. gender, focussing instead upon the considerable degree of spatial and temporal variability in the archaeological record (e.g. Tringham and Conkey 1998; Hamilton 2000; Bolger 2003, chap. 4; Mina 2007; Croucher 2008; DaemsTranscending Binary Gender Categories in Early 2008; Joyce 2008). It is no longer acceptable to lump allCypriot Society examples together under a single interpretative umbrellaTraditional narratives of the past have often assumed that since it is widely recognised that gender, identity and themen and women had sharply distinct roles even during body are unstable categories that are subject to frequentthe early phases of prehistory. Among archaeologists change (Butler 1999). Characterisations of early figurativeworking in Cyprus, this tendency is exemplified by the art in Cyprus as eternally feminine, static and unchanging, 19. Gender and social complexity in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus 157

concerning gender and pottery production in early agro-

pastoral societies, made popular during the 1960s and 1970s by Deetz, Longacre, Whallon and others, were also based on a priori assumptions concerning descent and post- marital residence patterns (e.g. Deetz 1968; Whallon 1968; Longacre 1981). Ceramic designs were used as evidence for establishing those patterns, and since it was assumed that women made pots, it followed that exogamic practices involving the movement of women should foster greater levels of intra-site variation and lesser degrees of inter-site variation as new ideas and techniques were transmitted between villages. Joanne Clarke has challenged this hypothesis by com- paring motifs on Red-on-White ceramics from the Cypriot Late Neolithic sites of Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi, Klepini-Troulli and Philia-Drakos site A (2002). Her results show that the two closest sites (Vrysi and Troulli) exhibit weaker stylistic links than those more distant from one another (Vrysi and Philia), thus contradicting the Deetz/Longacre hypothesis and suggesting that exogamic marital practices are not likely to have been responsible for the diffusion of stylistic elements in ceramic production on the island during its early phases. As Clarke observes, the models adopted by Deetz, Longacre, Whallon and others “highlight the theoretical inconsistencies of archaeological interpretation with regard to both gender based divisions of labour in prehistoric subsistence strategies, and socio-cultural interactive patterning” (2002, 253). Collective and cooperative efforts rather than sexually segregated patterns in the organisation of labour are strongly suggested by the results of experimental work withFig. 19.1 Dual-sexed figurine of the Chalcolithic period from Chalcolithic pottery at the Lemba Experimental VillageBuilding 1 at Lemba-Lakkous (after Peltenburg et al. 1985, where the replication of Early Chalcolithic pottery vesselsfrontispiece). has shown that the manufacture of hand-made pottery of the 4th and early 3rd millennia entailed a long and complex operational sequence that would have demanded the collaborative efforts of men, women and probably evensymbolic of fertility or maternity, representing mother children (Bolger 2003, chap. 3; Bolger and Shiels 2003). Ingoddesses or precursors to the goddess Aphrodite, give rise addition, the absence of firing facilities such as pits or kilns,to ahistorical narratives of the past that ignore contextual as well as the collection of clays and tempering materialsconstraints and obscure the dynamic character of bodily from remote sources, indicates that some stages of potteryrepresentation (e.g. Orphanides 1990; Karageorghis and production took place at considerable distances from home.Karageorghis 2002). Stereotypical narratives of the past that envision men as A second common misconception concerning gender in the primary makers and users of stone tools and women asancient societies is the notion that a sexual division of labour potters fail to recognise gender as a dynamic process that isemerged at an early stage in prehistory and rapidly led to the historically and contextually situated and therefore subjectdifferential involvement of men and women in technology, to frequent spatial and temporal variation.production and exchange (Bolger 2003, chap. 3; Bolger2010). One particularly common example is the view thatwomen were the principal pottery makers in early householdbased production since pottery manufacture is regarded as Gender and Social Complexity in the Cypriotan ‘interruptible’ task that can easily be accommodated Bronze Agewithin the domestic schedules conventionally associated While there is some evidence for low levels of socialwith women’s work (e.g. Arnold 1985, 100–101). Theories differentiation, status distinction and prestige hierarchy158 Diane Bolger

during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in Cyprus Bronze Age has not confirmed that expectation (Bolger(Peltenburg 2002), there is little evidence to suggest separate 2004).roles for males and females. During the Cypriot Bronze A study of EC-MC plank figurines by Talalay andAge, however, we might expect to see some evidence for a Cullen (2002) addresses this question for the late 3rd togendered division of labour, particularly in light of socio- early 2nd millennia and provides a good example of thepolitical changes that occurred during the second half of ways in which figurative art can be given more specificthe 3rd millennium as the island became part of a wider cultural meanings through contextual analysis (Fig. 19.2).sphere of cultural interaction; and during the 2nd millennium Although some of the plank figures have been found inas the result of the development of trade and metallurgy, settlements, they are more frequently associated with largewhich are widely regarded as catalysts for accelerated rates chamber tombs located in discrete cemetery complexesof socio-economic complexity, a more centralised political and utilised repeatedly as collective burial facilities overadministration, and the growth of densely populated urban several generations. The latter are very different from thecentres (Knapp 1986; 1993; 2008; Keswani 2004; Steel simple mortuary facilities of earlier periods, which with2004). In fact, recent research on gender during the Cypriot few exceptions comprise individual pit graves that were 19. Gender and social complexity in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus 159

used only once and were situated within settlements. This

new collective burial system signifies important changes in social organisation, and the placement of figurines into tombs may have been intended to underscore an individual’s membership in corporate kinship groups. Talalay and Cullen propose that the standardised, ‘genderless’ forms of the plank figures, as well as their repetitive decorative style, may also have been designed purposely to reinforce ideologies of corporate identity. As a result, aspects of individual identity, such as sex and gender, may have been deliberately obscured or suppressed (for an opposing view, see Knapp and Meskell 1997). While arguments for gender ambiguity within the contexts of EC and MC mortuary ritual are compelling, we cannot assume that this was the case in settlement contexts, or in later phases of the Bronze Age, which are characterised by the island’s increasing participation in international trade networks and by an accelerated demand by elite groups forFig. 19.3 Left: the ‘ingot god’ from Enkomi (after Tatton-Brown 1979, exotic luxury goods. The latter were very likely imbuedfig. 102). Right: the Bomford figurine (courtesy of the Ashmolean with symbolic as well as economic value, displayed andMuseum, Oxford). manipulated in order to enhance personal or group status,

and used to legitimise the positions of emerging elites within of disparate and competing sub-groups. This suggests thatan increasingly hierarchical social structure (e.g. Knapp the social construction of gender may have been more1986; 2008, chap. 4; Peltenburg 1996; Keswani 2004, chap. closely linked to the wealth and rank of individuals and5; Steel 2004, chap. 6). Very little has been said in these their affiliated groups than to biologically or culturallydiscussions, however, concerning the agency or identity of determined ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits (for furtherthe groups who were involved in those crucial developments, details, see Bolger 2003, chap. 6).with most scholars adopting a vague terminology (such as The existence of a centralised political apparatus on thethe use of the term ‘elite’) that foregrounds the role of active island during the LBA continues to be a topic of considerableplayers (tacitly assumed to be males) in the growth of socio- debate (for recent discussions, see Knapp 2008, chaps. 4,economic complexity (Gero 2000; Bolger 2003, chap. 1). 6; and Bolger 2009), but it seems likely that heterarchicalIt is significant in this context that the Ingot god figurine rather than hierarchical forms of social organisation fosteredfrom Enkomi (Fig. 19.3, left) rather than the Bomford variable patterns of gendered behaviour in different regionsfigurine (Fig. 19.3, right) is commonly used to illustrate and localities (Bolger 2004, chaps. 6–7). This may helpthese arguments, again revealing an unspoken belief that to explain the seemingly contradictory evidence in themen rather than women (or both) were the principal agents mortuary record of the LBA in which high proportions ofof social change (for exceptions see Bolger 2003, chap. 4; elite female burials occur at some sites but not at others, aand Knapp 2008, 173–186). Clearly the changes in gender pattern which has been observed by Keswani (2004, 141). Itrelations that accompanied the emergence and development also suggests that while some women in LC society managedof complex society in Cyprus are issues worthy of further to attain positions of high status, it was probably by virtueinvestigation. of their class and kinship affiliation rather than their sex or Given the lack of well stratified settlement evidence for gender that they managed to do so.large segments of the Bronze Age, changes in the interfacesbetween gender and socio-economic complexity are morereadily assessed through the evidence of mortuary data. Inmortuary rituals of the LBA, polarised gender constructs are Gender and Status in the Early Iron Age:suggested by the exclusive burial of males and/or females Continuity or Change?at a number of sites, such as Akhera, Toumba tou Skourou Major disruptions at the end of the LBA in Cyprus and theand Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios (Bolger 2003, 171–175). eastern Mediterranean, due in part to displaced populationsSimple correlations between segregated burial customs from the Aegean, are marked by new settlement patterns,and low female status are contradicted, however, by the pottery types and burial facilities; moreover, the appearanceluxurious nature and copious numbers of finds in female of elite tombs containing warrior equipment (e.g. Skalesgraves, such as the remarkable burial of two adult females T 76, Alaas T 12, and Kaloriziki T 40) suggests thattogether with three infants in T 11 at Kalavasos-Ayios military prowess played an important role in socio-politicalDhimitrios (Fig. 19.4; see also Goring 1989; South 1997). developments on the island from the end of the LBAThe lack of clear-cut patterns is in keeping with gendered into the EIA (Coldstream 1989; Steel 2002). In light ofapproaches in anthropology and history, which emphasise these dramatic changes, which also involved processes ofdiversity rather than uniformity of gender constructs and acculturation through the assimilation and amalgamation ofsocio-political organisation in the transition to state level different ethnic groups, Steel has argued for a significant shiftsociety (e.g. Gailey 1987; Silverblatt 1988; Ehrenreich et in gender relations during the EIA (2002, 105). In the finalal. 1995; Joyce and Hendon 2000). section of this paper I will attempt to assess this proposition Perhaps the most important aspect of gender suggested by looking at evidence of EIA mortuary ritual and potteryby burial evidence is the differential treatment of elite and iconography. Given the lack of settlement evidence for thenon-elite women: female burials at a number of sites were LBA/IA transition and the succeeding CG I period, thesefurnished with considerable wealth, but women of lower classes of evidence furnish the most useful data.status are archaeologically invisible. The same cannot Bioarchaeological evidence for gender in EIA Cyprusbe said of lower status males, who were accorded burial is limited due to the poorly preserved and inadequatelyrights at a number of sites, such as Enkomi (French T recorded state of the skeletal material. However, several10) and Ayios Iakovos-Melia (T 8) where burials of adult sites, such as Gastri-Alaas, Kouklia-Skales and Kourion-males are associated with locally made pottery but lack Kaloriziki, provide some insights into the treatment of elitemetalwork and other prestige items (Fischer 1986, 32–35). males and females. The cemetery of Gastri-Alaas (LCIIIB)Rather than fostering status distinctions between males shows the appearance of a new tomb type, the chamberand females, the growth of urbanism and more complex tomb with dromos (Karageorghis 1975). All burials wereforms of socio-political organisation appears to have had a inhumations, and all but one were single interments, but onlypolarising effect on women, dividing them into a number a small proportion of the skeletal material has been sexed. In 19. Gender and social complexity in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus 161

most cases only the presence or absence of skeletal material The osteological report published in the Skales report bywas noted, but sex was recorded for the principal burials Schulte-Campbell (appendix XII) summarises the analyticalin three of the tombs: T 14, an adult male associated with results on 20 individuals (9 males, 4 females, 5 adults ofa Bucchero Wheelmade cup and a Proto-bichrome stirrup unknown sex, and 1 child), but it is not complete: only ajar; T 15, an adult female buried with ten pottery vessels, portion of the anthropological material was studied, andincluding a Mycenaean three-handled jar and a lentoid flask there are numerous inconsistencies between the numbersof ‘foreign ware’, as well as a pair of gold earrings; and T and sexes of individuals provided in the tomb descriptions16, an adult female whose many associated finds include 18 of the main text and those in appendix XII.pottery vessels, an ivory disc, two bronze fibulae, a bronze Despite these limitations, it is possible to gain some ideapin, and a pair of gold earrings. Despite the limited nature of the wealth and status of individuals buried in these tombs.of this evidence, it is significant that the two females were In the five cases where sexed burials can be associated withvery lavishly furnished while the male burial had relatively particular sets of grave goods, four are adult females (Tombsfew objects. In accordance with current approaches in 72, 78, 88, 93) and one is an adult male (T 79). This suggestsanthropology and archaeology, which stress the central role that elite women formed a substantial proportion, if not aof the living community in the treatment of the dead (e.g. majority, of the burial population at the site. Headshaping,Parker Pearson 1999), this pattern suggests a high degree which was widely practiced by elite groups during theof continuity in communal values regarding the status of LBA in Cyprus (Bolger 2003; Lorentz 2008), has beenelite females throughout the LC period. recorded on two CG skulls: an adult male (T 49, b) and an The rich cemetery at Kouklia-Skales (Karageorghis adult female (T 93, 36a). Both display the deliberate ‘post-1983) should provide ample scope for understanding bregmatic’ pattern common in LBA contexts, suggesting thatpatterns of gender and mortuary ritual during the Iron Age, the practice of cranial modification continued to be appliedbut problems of preservation, excavation, and recording to both male and female infants during the CGI period.pose serious limitations. In addition, the practice of I turn now to what is arguably the richest and mostmultiple burial programmes makes it difficult to associate important tomb of EIA Cyprus, T 40 at Kourion-Kalorizikiparticular individuals with particular sets of grave goods. (Fig. 19.5). The tomb was looted in 1903, but nearly 50162 Diane Bolger

another plays a lyre (1988, cat. no. 29). None of the human figures on PWP pottery is unquestionably female, but in the corpus published by Iacovou (1988) only two of the four figures on LC IIIB examples and two of the five figures on CGI examples are unambiguously male, i.e. depicted with a penis and/or a beard (1988, cat. nos 19, 29, 33–34). It is not entirely clear how the gender of the other examples has been determined, but in some cases it is likely to have been inferred from their dress, their well-developed calf and thigh musculature, and the presence or absence of weaponry. The lack of clear cut sex indicators on the majority of the painted figures, however, begs the question of why some were depicted as active, aggressive, unambiguous males while the gender of others is far less certain; such diversity of expression should encourage us to adopt a more flexible and nuanced approach to our understanding of gender during the EIA. While the evidence for gender in Early Iron Age CyprusFig. 19.6 Cypro-Geometric I plate in Proto White Painted ware is limited, and needs to be examined in greater detail thanfrom Tomb 58 at Kouklia-Skales (after Iacovou 1988, fig. 78). has been possible here, it is difficult to confirm that “a significant change in gender relations among elite groups” took place at this time (Steel 2004, 113). As we have seen,years later, with help from one of the looters, McFadden burial evidence from three key sites (Gastri-Alaas, Kouklia-managed to re-locate it; his subsequent excavations led to Skales, and Kourion-Kaloriziki), as well as iconographicthe discovery of a rock-cut bench at the south end of the evidence on Proto White Painted vessels, fails to supportchamber which the looters had missed (1954). A number the notion of a dramatic shift in gender relations duringof exceptional in situ finds were found on top of the bench, the LC IIIB and CG I periods, at least among elite groups;including a bronze urn containing the cremated remains of unfortunately, we still know very little about the gender rolesan adult female and luxury items, such as gold and bronze and identities among non-elites of either period.ornaments, ceramic drinking equipment, and a bronzedrinking set (Steel 2002, 112). A similar urn recoveredfrom the earlier looting operations was assumed to haveoriginally contained the cremated remains of her male Conclusionspartner, despite the lack of evidence for a burial within it; By considering changes in gender constructs within specificthis ‘invisible’ male is still widely regarded as the bearer temporal and contextual frameworks it is possible to moveof the famous sceptre and therefore a king, making the beyond generic models based on unmediated assumptionsfemale his consort. McFadden’s proposal of this hypothetical and explore the dynamic inter-relationships between gendermale has thus become a ‘fact’ cited in much subsequent and other aspects of culture such as technology, ritual,archaeological literature to support notions of kingship material culture and socio-economic complexity (Joyceand royalty (e.g. Coldstream 1989, 333). If we ignore the 2008). As we have seen, there is little evidence for polarisedobvious gender biases inherent in this interpretation and gender categories during the earlier phases of Cypriotconsider the evidence itself, there are strong grounds to prehistory. While there are some indications of increasingargue for the continued social recognition of elite women distinctions between male and female roles during theduring the EIA. LBA, differences within those gender groups are as visible The emergence of Proto White Painted ware during the and significant as divisions between them. And despite theLC IIIB period (Iacovou 1988) issued in a new stylistic considerable social transformations that mark the transitionrepertoire which Steel cites as evidence for newly emerging to the EIA, gender constructs do not appear to have alteredgender constructs (2002, 112). Several of the painted figures significantly, at least among the upper echelons of society.on PWP vessels can clearly be identified as males engaged in The overall picture that emerges is one in whichactivities (i.e. hunting, fishing and other activities involving abstract models linking increasing levels of socio-economicanimals), which Steel characterises as a ‘macho’ style (Fig. complexity to a decline in female status cannot easily be19.6). However, some of the male figures on these vessels sustained. During all phases of Cypriot prehistory, local andappear to be engaged in less ‘macho’ endeavours: one is regional patterns are likely to have prevailed over island-shown holding a flower (Iacovou 1988, cat no. 34) while wide developments, and this lack of cultural uniformity 19. Gender and social complexity in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus 163

undermines attempts to apply universal categories of gender ations: a discussion of case studies from the Pre-potteryand social identity to ancient Cypriot communities. By Neolithic and Halaf periods. In D. Bolger (ed.) Gender throughexamining the evidence contextually, and by highlighting Time in the Ancient Near East, 21–51. Gender and Archaeologyvariability in social behaviour, it is possible to move beyond Series. Lanham (MD), AltaMira. Daems, A. 2008. Evaluating patterns of gender through Meso-abstract categories such as ‘state’, ‘pre-state’, ‘male’ and potamian and Iranian human figurines. In D. Bolger (ed.)‘female’ to uncover patterns of gender based on particular Gender through Time in the Ancient Near East, 77–117. Gendertemporal and spatial constraints. Here, as elsewhere, links and Archaeology Series. Lanham (MD), AltaMira.between sex, gender and other aspects of society must be Deetz, J. 1968. The inference of residence and descent rules fromdemonstrated rather than assumed. In contrast to unilinear- archaeological data. In L. R. Binford and S. R. Binford (eds)evolutionary models in which socio-political trajectories are New Perspectives in Archaeology, 41–48. Chicago, Aldine.seen to emerge gradually from one century or millennium to Dikaios, P. 1953. Khirokitia. Oxford, Oxford University Press.the next, contextual approaches are non-linear and recursive, Dikaios, P. 1961. Sotira. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvaniaand as a result are more finely attuned to the richness and Press.diversity of human behaviour that the archaeological record Ehrenreich, R. M., C. L. Crumley, and J. E. Levy (eds) 1995.of Cyprus so strikingly conveys. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Archaeo- logical Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. Washington DC, American Anthropological Association. Fischer, P. 1986. Prehistoric Cypriot Skulls. Studies in Mediter- ranean Archaeology 75. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag.Abbreviations Gailey, C. W. 1987. From Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchy CG Cypro-Geometric and State Formation in the Tongan Islands. Austin, University EC Early Cypriot of Texas Press. EIA Early Iron Age Gero, J. 2000. Troubled travels in agency and feminism. In M.- LBA Late Bronze Age A. Dobres and J. Robb (eds) Agency in Archaeology, 40–50. LC Late Cypriot London and New York, Routledge. Goring, E. 1989. Death in everyday life: Aspects of burial practice MC Middle Cypriot in the Late Bronze Age. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Early Society in T Tomb Cyprus, 95–105. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Hamilton, N. 2000. Ungendering archaeology: Concepts of sex and gender in figurine studies. In M. Donald and L. Hurcombe (eds) Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present,References 17–30. New York, MacMillan.Arnold, D. E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Iacovou, M. 1988. The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century B.C. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press. Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 78. Göteborg,Bolger, D. 2003. Gender in Ancient Cyprus: Narratives of Social Paul Åströms Förlag. Change on a Mediterranean Island. Gender and Archaeology Joyce, R. 2008. Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender and Series. Walnut Creek (CA), AltaMira. Archaeology. London, Thames & Hudson.Bolger, D. 2009. Review of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Joyce, R. and J. A. Hendon 2000. Heterarchy, history and material Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity by A. B. Knapp. Antiquity reality: “Communities” in late Classic Honduras. In M. A. 83, 550–551. Canuto and J. Yaeger (eds) The Archaeology of Communities:Bolger, D. 2010. The dynamics of gender in early agricultural A New World Perspective, 143–160. New York, Routledge. societies of the Near East. Signs 35.2, 503–531. Karageorghis, V. 1975. Alaas: A Protogeometric Necropolis inBolger, D. and J. Shiels 2003. The pottery. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Cyprus. Nicosia, Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. The Colonisation and Settlement of Cyprus: Investigations Karageoghis, V. 1983. Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976–1996, 133–168. Studies in in Cyprus. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3. Con- Mediterranean Archaeology 70(4). Sävedalen, Paul Åströms stance, Universitätsverlag Konstanz. Förlag. Karageorghis, V. and J. Karageorghis 2002. The great goddess ofButler, J. 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Cyprus or the genesis of Aphrodite in Cyprus. In S. Parpola Identity. London and New York, Routledge. and R. M. Whiting (eds) Sex and Gender in the Ancient NearClarke, J. 2002. Gender, economy and ceramic production East, 263–282. Winona Lake (IN), Eisenbrauns. in Neolithic Cyprus. In D. Bolger and N. Serwint (eds) Keswani, P. 2004. Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, Cyprus. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology. London, 251–263. CAARI Monographs 3. Boston, American Schools Equinox. of Oriental Research. Knapp, A. B. 1986. Copper Production and Divine protection:Coldstream, J. N. 1989. Status symbols in Cyprus in the eleventh Archaeology, Ideology and Social Complexity on Bronze Age century BC. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Early Society in Cyprus, Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book 325–335. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. 42. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag.Croucher, K. 2008. Ambiguous genders? Alternative interpret- Knapp, A. B. 1993. Social complexity: Incipience, emergence and164 Diane Bolger

THE PAINTING PROCESS OF WHITE PAINTED AND

WHITE SLIP WARES: COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

Louise C. Maguire

There are many instances in archaeology of not seeing the the same community. Van Keuren discovered that non-wood for the trees, but committed research and passionate local potters could learn from local potters in spite of anydetermination can obtain a clearer picture from evidence existing language barriers. While non-local potters mayavailable. The success of this approach has been demon- have produced almost identical pots, it can be observedstrated by Professor Eddie Peltenburg, who poses challenging that the design execution sequence is not copied (1999,questions to any type of data from archaeological fieldwork 51–52). Rather, non-local potters retained their own identityto the minutiae of small finds, whether freshly excavated or through a design sequence pertaining to their own learninghidden in the darker recesses of museum basements. He has framework even though their communities had merged.communicated his enthusiasm for thorough investigations Many of these behaviours are adopted through copyingto his students, and as one of them I have been persistent motor skills and are learned by children (Crown 2001)and inquisitive in my research into Cypriot Middle and Late as embedded behaviour within a learning frameworkBronze Age ceramics. which may last for generations. Researchers studying the This paper is an attempt to search beyond the pottery behaviour of potters who produced the Classic Stallingstypes primarily used to classify and date material. It presents pottery assemblages of Georgia and South Carolina dis-a systematic reconstruction of the painting processes of covered that the orientation of punctured decoration wasWhite Painted ware. The analysis has been carried out by significant (Sassaman and Rudophi 2001). Handednessreconstructing the complete brushstroke sequence on each could be reconstructed from the orientation of the puncturedpot. It reaches the conclusion that the major differences decoration. The geographical percentages of handedness,between the sequences found on White Painted wares from they suggested, reflected matrilocal post-marital residencethe Karpas, the eastern Mesaoria and the rest of the island among Stallings riverine communities. Over the course ofare a result of the positioning of the pot during the painting fifteen generations, certain communities displayed a greaterprocess. The differences in the positioning of the pots, either proportion of left-oriented vessels, above the statistical normupright or upside down, indicate that there was a significant for populations, ancient or modern (Sassaman and Rudophishift of practice between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. 2001). These types of behaviours, which originate from aThis will be demonstrated and discussed. learning framework by copying motor skills, have also been defined by anthropologists as increasing participation within “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991, 49–50; Wenger 1998, 45) where communities are the learning unit.Communities of Practice Research has extended beyond pottery groups to textilesHardin (1977; 1983) and Van Keuren (1999, 8) conclude where the direction of cordage could be reconstructed fromthat potters can borrow design elements with some ease. impressions in pottery (Minar 2001). The results show thatDesign structures, however, or the sequences used to paint groups with very different patterns of final twist directionthe pot, are indicative of subconscious learning behaviours are not likely to have originated from the same culturalwhich signal that potters were closely interacting within or technological traditions, which has implications for the166 Louise C. Maguire

correlates of material culture and embedded behaviour while the other hand held the pot; future analyses may be(Minar 2001, 398–399). able to determine handedness. In the case of the Cypriot ceramic material we are The second factor in determining the position of the pot atslightly more restricted in our ability to measure generational painting is the layout of the design friezes around the vessel.intervals since the bulk of painted whole vessels required In most cases the potters worked without markers, estimatingfor analysis comes from tomb groups rather than settlement the number of elements required to finish a frieze encirclingcontexts. Nevertheless, we do have a large number of the vessel. This would lead to either an over- or under-whole vessels which we can use to reconstruct the painting estimation of the number of elements required to completeprocesses from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages across a frieze, anomalies which can be recorded. The potter wouldthe island. We will presume that individual potters were often reduce the size of the element to squeeze in an elementliving and practicing in the same areas immediate to the at the end of the frieze, or the potter would misjudge thepropensity of ware type (e.g. the bulk of Red on Black number of elements in a chequer pattern and leave a blankpottery in Cyprus is from the Karpas and suggests that it square. In both of these examples it is possible to work out thewas made in this region). We can then attempt to trace the start and finish of a frieze and therefore the direction of thesubconscious brushstroke behaviour of these individual frieze as the potter painted. If we combine these analyses withpotters, which can be studied as collective community the direction of the brushstrokes, we can begin to estimatepractice across the island. the position of the pot at painting. Two examples from two An initial survey of WP, PWS and WS wares has differing practices are presented below.revealed that there were significant differences in the designexecution sequences both within ware groups and across thetraditional regional groups (Maguire 2009a). It was observedthat the directionality of brushstrokes encircling the vessels White Painted Positioningwas either left to right or right to left, or bidirectional, butthe reasons for these differing practices were not fully Karpas: Boghazunderstood. In order to fully comprehend the painting The painting process of a WP V amphora from Boghazprocess of each vessel, all the brushstrokes visible on a is illustrated in Fig. 20.1. This particular amphora, whichpot have been reconstructed by a potter using schematic displays a distinctive WP chequered pattern, does have aillustration. The results are presented here. PWS fabric, which leads to the conclusion that the origins In the course of reconstructing the full design com- of PWS may lie with this variant (Webb 1997, 90, no.position on each vessel, it became apparent that it was 408). The vessel belongs to the WP tradition of the Karpaspossible to suggest the position that the pot had been held and eastern Mesaoria. Several examples of WP IV and WPin to complete both the banding (by hand and not rotative V, stylistically similar to the Boghaz piece, come fromkinetic energy, henceforth RKE) and the individual elements Galinoporni [e.g. Cyprus Museum T 2 (1956) no. 17]; T 1or friezes within framed bands. (1956) no. 5, see Crewe forthcoming, fig. 5.5); Nitovikla (T 2, no. 47, see Gjerstad et al. 1934, pl. CVIII.11); and Ayios Iakovos (T 9, see Nys and Åström 2005, 30 and, 238, pl. 13). The design structure of the vessel is divided into fourPositioning Practice friezes encircling the vessel. The frieze immediately belowThere are two main levels of observation in determining the the rim is filled with a row of lozenges. The remainingposition in which a pot has been held while being painted. friezes are filled with a chequered lattice.The first is the direction of the brushstrokes. Brushstroke With the pot in the upright position, the brushstrokesdirection can be determined by the pool of paint at the start can be observed to run from right to left around the vessel.of the brush and the tapering of the stroke as the paint is This is true for the encircling pairs of bands, which act as areleased from the brush or tool. As the paint is expended, the frame for the lozenges and hatched chequers, as well as forpaint applied often becomes weaker. As the pot is observed the encircling wavy line, which alternates with the bands ofin the upright position, the brushstrokes proceed left to right decoration. It is not exactly clear where the starting pointor anti-clockwise around the vessel. A starting point for the of the horizontal double framing line is on each frieze. Thepotter is often a feature such as a handle or a spout. If the pot direction of the brushstroke, right to left, does indicate thathas been turned upside down or on its side, the brushstrokes the potter held the pot upside down with the predominantrun right to left or clockwise. Some pots have been turned hand painting in an anti-clockwise direction. To stop theon their side, and this can be determined in conjunction paint becoming smudged by holding the vessel in the hand,with the positioning of elements of decoration along with the potter probably inserted his/her fist or whole hand intobrushstroke direction. We have presumed that the dominant the body of the vessel to turn it to the next painting angle.hand held the brush or tool (such as sticks or bird feathers) The encircling bands were done in nearly parallel strokes 20. The painting process of White Painted and White Slip wares: Communities of practice 167

Fig 20.1 Schematic reconstruction of the painting process of a WP V vessel from Boghaz (University of New England, 74/13/1).168 Louise C. Maguire

with stop and start points often in the same place as the the vessel is divided by framed encircling bands aroundpotter developed a rhythm. the neck and widest part of the vessel. This large frieze is The encircling bands were painted first, while the pot was then subdivided into vertical panels filled in with alternatingupside down. To complete the painting process, the pot was themes of cross hatching, either full panels or lozenges.then held either upright or with the vessel on its side while The significant difference between the two vessels isthe potter finished the decoration within the framed bands. that the banding (not using RKE) in the case of Kythrea TIn the angle of the vessel shown in Fig. 20.1, a, it is easy 1 was probably started to the right of the handle in a leftto see that the starting point of the first frieze was the row to right direction while the pot was in an upright position.of lozenges below the rim. The lozenges were created by a The pot was continuously turned and probably held by thegrid of crosses. However, as the potter progressed around the undecorated base or neck. The panels were also completedvessel, it is evident that the spacing and width of the crosses while the vessel was in an upright position, starting to thefor completing the pot was overestimated. Consequently, the right of the handle and progressing around the pot. The finalpotter has squeezed in two smaller crosses which float in the panel to the left of the handle has been compromised and ispattern and are not connected in to the previous rhythmic smaller and narrower than the previous panels. The majoritycrosses (see Fig 20.1, d). The remaining three bands of of WP V Fine Line Style vessels have been painted while thedecoration containing the lattice chequer squares have been vessel was upright although some have been turned upsidelaid out in a grid pattern with either vertical brushstrokes (pot down to complete small elements of decoration.upright) or right to left brushstrokes (pot on its side), mostof which go straight through the horizontal dividing line. The first frieze of chequers below the lozenges starts to Samplethe right of the handle and progresses around the vessel. Over 200 whole vessels were analysed using brushstrokeHowever, a compensating anomaly exists where the chequers analysis. These vessels were sampled from two main WPhave been extended at the end point to meet the start point groups: Group 1, WP II–VI from the north, centre and(Fig. 20.1, b). This is evident on the second frieze of chequers, southeast of the island; and Group 2, WP III–V, WP III–IVbut in this instance the potter has started at the vertical line Wavy Line Style of the Karpas/Mesaoria region. Group 1 isbelow the handle and worked right to left (pot upside down characterised by brushstrokes produced with a single brushor on side); the compensating anomaly of an extended six- and banding of the vessel to demarcate zones. The bandingelement chequer and two adjacent blank squares is clearly brushstrokes run from left to right (from an observationalobvious (Fig. 20.1, b, second frieze). Most of the wavy bands angle), indicative of predominantly upright positioning. Thisare created with squiggle brushstrokes of single curves, but group comprises an extensive variety of shapes, includingdouble curves have been used on the band beneath the top bowls, jugs, tankards, flasks, composite vases and animalfrieze (Fig. 20.1, a). shapes, with widespread distribution across the island. This distribution includes the WP Cross Line Style, WP Pendent Line Style and WP V Broad Band wares of the centre andNorth, Northwest and Centre: Kythrea south-east of the island.The painting process of a WP V Fine Line Style jug from The WP III–V and WP III–IV Wavy Line Style of GroupKythrea Tomb 1 (Åström 1972, 70, fig. XVII.3) is illustrated 2 are very similar in general stylistic appearance to Group 1in Fig. 20.2. This jug belongs to a group of vessels which wares. Although the vessel functions are probably similar,have a very distinctive fine line decoration using a limited the overall shapes are quite different. However, Group 2 isrepertoire of motifs in a wide selection of vessel types. It has characterised by cross-hatched motifs within friezes markedbeen thought that their execution is so distinctive that they by encircling bands (single or double) but displays consistentcould belong to individual artists or workshops (Maguire right to left directionality (pot upside down) in banding1991). The distribution of Fine Line Style extends from but sometimes upright positioning for finishing decorativeLapithos-Kylistra, Toumba tou Skourou and Akhera in the bands. Parallel wavy lines, more common on RoB ware,north to Nicosia-Ayia Paraskevi, Kythrea, and Politiko in are often carried out using a multiple tool. One particularlythe centre and Livadhia and Klavdhia in the southeast. It interesting example of this ware, which offers a critical linkeven extends to Tell el-Dabca in the Nile Delta where three to the behaviour of PWS and RoB, is a large WP V jug fromfragments have been discovered (Maguire 2009b, 31–32). Ayios Iakovos-Melia (Gjerstad et al. 1934, 336, pl. CIX.1;The distinctive motifs of the Fine Line Style ware have also Maguire 2009a, fig. 5.4). It comprises multiple brushstrokesbeen found on handmade Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware globular in a RoB fashion on the neck and base of the vessel and injuglets (Maguire 2009b, 24–25). ladder patterns in chequered squares, but the directionality The design structure of the vessel illustrated in Fig. 20.2 of the banding is mixed. It is a unique example of how ais similar to the Boghaz vessel previously discussed in that piece has been fashioned using techniques and behaviourthe potter demarcates the vessel into zones. In this case, of both WP and RoB on the same vessel. 20. The painting process of White Painted and White Slip wares: Communities of practice 169

ResultsThe results of the analyses are presented in Fig. 20.3.For Groups 1–3 it is clear that the upright position is thepredominant one for holding the vessel with the occasionaloccurrence of mixed positions, which may be peculiar tospecific practices in WP V Fine Line Style. In Group 2,WP wares from the Karpas and eastern Mesaoria, there arevery few vessels that have been fashioned with the vesselin the upright position for the banding lines. Of those thatare upright, some appear to be imports to this area from thenorth (e.g. WP V FLS, Ayios Iakovos T 9 no. 2; see Åström1972, fig. XVII.9). It is not surprising that the positioning practice of the WPwares of the Karpas peninsula is different from the rest ofthe island, given the distinctiveness of other ware groupsfrom this area (e.g. RoB). The shapes of the WP wares ofGroup 2 stand out from the rest of the island but are athome in the stylistic repertoire of the RoB wares to whichthey seem closely linked. Chronologically for Group 1, theWP II wares of Lapithos-Vrysi tou Barba and Vounous, forexample, are predominantly painted in the upright position,and the practice continues in WP III, IV and V at Deneia(Frankel and Webb 2007). This continuity demonstratesthat despite population growth and migratory fluctuation,and amidst diversity and variation in technological changes,the painting process remained the same. For Group 2, whilethe available evidence suggests that the WP Wavy LineStyle and some WP IV may have been present in MCII,the majority of WP vessels are WP V, perhaps indicating adate of MCIII or later. In comparison to Group 1, therefore,Group 2 has a relatively shorter lifespan.

Proto White Slip and White Slip Ware Positioning

In the Late Bronze Age the painting practices of ProtoWhite Slip and White Slip wares reflect those of Group 2rather than those of Groups 1 and 3. PWS and WS waresalso differ from Group 1 in that they are fashioned usingmultiple brushes, commonly used in RoB ware. A brief survey of the PWS and WS wares of the LateBronze Age indicates that P/WS vessels were predominantlypainted with the vessel held upside down and the brushstrokedirection right to left, with occasional turns to the uprightposition (Maguire 2009a). Fig. 20.4 is a schematic illus-tration reconstructing the painting sequence on a PWS bowl(Morris 1985, pl. 29b). The brushstrokes run from right toleft around the vessel. Both the wavy line below the rim andthe framed bands of the rope lattice have been completedwhile the pot was help upside down. The incidental motifswere probably done while the vessel was upright. Multiplebrushes or devices, probably made with sticks or chickenfeathers, were used for the double framed encircling bands Fig. 20.3 Proportions of upright, upside down and mixed painting(2 brush). The hatching within the bands was done with a practices in WP wares. 20. The painting process of White Painted and White Slip wares: Communities of practice 171

fine 2 brush for the horizontal lines and the oblique lines encircling bands, rope lattice, lozenges, horned motifs andwere made of 8 brushfuls. This painting process is typical of multiple dots are varied, but the overall stylistic impressionthe bulk of P/WS vessels. A vessel from Morphou-Toumba is essentially static and a White Slip piece is easilytou Skourou is an example of PWS painted while the pot is recognised. The sheer volume of pottery produced suggestshelp upside down (Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 269, T III.8, mass production even before production locales such aspl. 159C). A WS I example from Palaeopaphos-Teratsoudhia Sanidha-Moutti tou Ayiou Serkou were excavated. In lightshows that the banding lines have been carried out while of this stylistic longevity, it seems even more pertinent tothe vessel was upside down (T 105 Chamber B(iii); see emphasise this behavioural transformation of the paintingKarageorghis 1990, 48, pl. VIII). A WS I bowl from Ayia process at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.Irini-Paleokastro has been worked in both positions, upsidedown and upright (T 21.34; see Pecorella 1977, 148, fig.363b) and a WS II vessel from Maroni-Vournes has alsobeen held upside down (Cadogan et al. 2001, fig. 14). Discussion This community practice of holding the vessel upside From this survey it is clear that at the end of the Middledown to be painted continued for centuries in the case of WS Bronze Age the practice of painting a WP vessel holding itwares. This aspect of longevity has not been fully addressed in the upright position for banding was the most commonbut has been alluded to in many studies (e.g. Morris 1985, practice in Cyprus. Consistently holding the vessel upside36; Karageorghis 2001, 7). WS is a truly remarkable down was the preferred practice only in the Karpasstylistic phenomenon and was manufactured and distributed and eastern Mesaoria. The PWS and WS wares, whichextensively in Cyprus, the Levant, Egypt and the Aegean for eventually replaced the WP wares, were also painteda period of some four centuries or more (Eriksson 2007, 13, holding the vessel upside down but notably for a periodtable 1B). Incredibly, in this 400 year period the repertoire of several centuries. Much of the WP production of theof handmade shapes was very conservative – bowl, jar, jug, Middle Bronze Age has been seen against a backgroundtankard, bottle and krater – and within these types there is a of inter-regional communities. Some households practicedlarge amount of standardisation (Popham 1972, 441; Morris pottery making, and continuity was maintained most likely1985, 37). Continuing to fashion handmade vessels when through matrilocal residence. Some communities were indevices using rotational energy were widely adopted in the closer interaction than others, but all are likely to haveLevant and Mediterranean reiterates so-called conservatism, been linked to some degree through the copper industrybut essentially a formula of organisational intensity is more (Frankel 1974).likely to have been economically viable. The decorative However, the major shift from these WP diversified pro-elements, while progressively sloppier towards the end of ducts to the more standardised P/WS and other uniform LCWhite Slip, are nevertheless instantly recognisable and the wares has often been interpreted as a change from small unitconstituent impermeable thick white slip very durable. The based household production to specialised workshop output172 Louise C. Maguire

(Steel 2004, 163). A comparative shift from a diversified Conclusions

output in jugs and juglets across the Mediterranean and This paper has presented a reconstruction of the paintingEgypt to a standardised pan-Cypriot distribution network of processes of White Painted Ware based on analysing theBase Ring juglets may also indicate increased organisation brushstroke sequences on 200 WP vessels. The results showin production to suit consumption (Maguire 2009b, 64). The that there are fundamental differences in the communities ofbreak in household pottery production has been linked to practice between the WP of the north, centre and south ofthe unsettled period between MCIII and LCI during which a the island (where the pots were painted while held upright)certain amount of hybridisation occurred (Crewe 2007, 216; and the WP of the Karpas and eastern Mesaoria (where theKnapp 2008, 114; Frankel and Webb 2007, 106) along with pots were painted held upside down). These differences arethe abandonment of existing settlements and the appearance significant since PWS and WS practices originate from theof new coastal settlements. practices and learning framework of the Karpas and were What cannot be underestimated is the widespread also painted while held upside down. The implications areproduction, distribution and adoption of P/WS wares in that a complete transformation of communities of practiceareas where community practice was the opposite and had occurred at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, a shift whichbeen for several centuries. Did potters equipped with the should be added to elements of social transformation whichknowledge of high temperatures, thick slips, multiple brush seemed to be happening at this formative period.tools, bichrome techniques and the practice of painting potsupside down also move into existing settlements and thenew settlements? If practices are ultimately linked to thelearning frameworks of pottery-making communities, might Acknowledgementsthese communities have influenced the learning framework I am extremely grateful to Prof. Manfred Bietak, firstthrough the creation of specialised workshops or through speaker of the special research program SCIEM 2000their own residence in new areas? (The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern The impetus for these potters to initially move to new Mediterranean in the 2nd Millennium BC) and Asst. Prof.areas may be the result of increased economic necessity Irmgard Hein, who have enabled this research. I wouldthrough the exploitation of copper or the harvesting and also like to thank Dr. Pavlos Flourentzos for permissiondistribution of indigenous produce for export; the longevity to research and publish material from Kythrea, and Dr.of the communities of practice may be due to sustained Watters of the University of New England for providingfamilial learning frameworks, albeit on a large scale or the photography in Fig 20.1. I am indebted to Elizabethhighly specialised workshops of apprentices. Hird, who studied the painting process and drew the Elsewhere I have suggested that the PWS and WS schematic illustrations in Figs 20.1, 20.2 and 20.4; and topractice of painting the pot upside down originated in the WP Lubica Zelenkova for compiling the layouts in those sameof the Karpas and eastern Mesaoria and the multiple brushes figures.of the RoB ware tradition (Maguire 2009a). The embeddedbehaviour of the potters of both ware groups is very similar,and these potters are very likely to have originated from thesame community. This is the behaviour of a highly organised Abbreviationscommunity of potters already specialising in the preparation FLS Fine Line Styleand processing of clays to achieve homogeneous fine fabrics, LC Late Cypriotproducing a limited range of shapes (predominantly bowls), MC Middle Cypriotand presumably achieving speedier completion rates with PWS Proto White Slipthe use of multiple tools. Even though PWS and RoB wares RoB Red on Blackwere produced in different parts of the island, the fact that RoR Red on Redthey were exported in large numbers to sites in the Levant T Tomb(e.g. Tell el-cAjjul) at the earliest inception of the production WP White Paintedof PWS further corroborates a link between these two ware WS White Slipgroups. RoB and RoR wares are also found at sites in thewest where the earliest PWS has been excavated, suchas Akhera (see Karageorghis 1965, 99, fig. 26.97) andPendayia (Karageorghis 1965, 29, fig. 9.38). We can surmise Referencesthat the RoB and WP potters of the Karpas were already Åström P. 1972. The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. The Swedishworking within specialised workshops, producing a limited Cyprus Expedition IV(1B). Lund, Swedish Cyprus Exped-number of shapes, using consistent firing temperatures, and ition.executing a limited design structure. Cadogan, G., E. Herscher, P. Russell and S. Manning 2001. Maroni- 20. The painting process of White Painted and White Slip wares: Communities of practice 173

THE CERAMIC INDUSTRY OF DENEIA:

Ceramic decorative styles have been extensively used to representations of similarity and difference for the purposeexplore prehistoric social relations, particularly in North of defining membership and creating real and imaginedAmerican and Mesoamerican studies (e.g. Plog 1980; 1990; communities for political or other purposes (Marcus 2000,2003; MacDonald 1990; Hegmon 1995; Graves 1998; 238–239; Isbell 2000, 258).Bartlett and McAnany 2000). This approach has rarely, In the prehistoric record ‘practices of affiliation’ arehowever, been applied to pottery wares of the Cypriot only likely to be visible, if at all, in material residues, theBronze Age where concern with seriation, typology and most durable and abundant of which is usually pottery. Inspatio-temporal distribution largely continues to hold sway. recent years concern with the communicative power ofDecorative motifs have an idiosyncratic, artistic dimension, artefacts, and in particular with decorated vessels, has ledreproduce shared traditions, and implicitly or explicitly to significant advances in understanding the role played byconvey membership in social groups (Wobst 1977; Wiessner material culture in forming social identities (see Costin 20011983; 1985; 1989; Plog 1990, 2003; Graves 1998). As such and Schortman and Urban 2004 for recent reviews). Coupledthey have the potential to reveal the ‘relative identities’ with an ever growing literature on style, agency and the(Wiessner 1990, 107) of those who produced, used and individual (Hill and Gunn 1977; Conkey and Hastorf 1990;viewed ceramic vessels at varying scales of spatial and social Hegmon 1992; Stark 1998; Dobres 2000; Dobres and Robbdistance and to define individual, sub-group and community 2000; Knapp and van Dommelen 2008, etc.), this providesmembership within small scale societies. a rich theoretical and conceptual basis from which more Recent studies have moved beyond the concept of empirically minded archaeologists have much to gain.the physical site to view communities as ‘networks of This paper examines the ceramic industry of Deneiainteraction’ involving social reproduction, subsistence (Dhenia) in north-west Cyprus during the Middle Bronzeproduction and self-identification (Kolb and Snead 1997). Age, and in particular the dominant Red Polished ware,Yaeger and Canuto (2000, 5–6) emphasise the importance arguing that the vessel forms and decorative motifs whichof supra-household interactions and suggest, as a simple distinguish this assemblage were active symbols whichdefinition, that community is the conjunction of “people, operated meaningfully within their cultural context. It willplace and premise.” Shared premises developed during the examine the feedback between social purpose and designcourse of daily interactions are mobilised in the formation innovation in an attempt to identify the dynamics drivingof a common identity which may involve or crosscut kin diversity and uniformity in ceramic production and explainrelationships (see also Pauketat 2000). A sense of place the singular nature of this settlement. It is offered to Eddieis also central to personal and group membership (on Peltenburg on the occasion of his (semi)-retirement incommunity as a “chain of attachment to place,” see Marcus appreciation of his immense contribution to Levantine2000, 239, citing Rodman 1992, 651). Yaeger and Canuto prehistory and almost single-handed construction of a social(2000) have similarly stressed the importance of historical archaeology for the Cypriot Chalcolithic.context, which gives meaning to community interaction. 21. The ceramic industry of Deneia: Crafting community and place in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus 175

Deneia in the Middle Bronze Age key contemporary site on the north coast. Individual vesselsThe cemeteries at Deneia-Kafkalla (henceforth Deneia) and moved from one village to the other, and it has long beenMali extend over six hectares and are the most extensive on recognised that Deneia and Lapithos belonged to the samethe island. A total of 1,286 tombs have been documented, regional sphere of interaction.with the original number likely to have been two to three Other aspects of the pottery highlight inter-site differencetimes higher (Frankel and Webb 2007; Webb 2009; Webb and are typical of, and largely confined to, Deneia. Blackand Frankel 2009). Systematic looting over generations Polished ware, for example, used for small, finely decoratedand limited formal excavation (Åström and Wright 1962; vessels, is far more common at Deneia than anywhere elseHadjisavvas 1985; Nicolaou and Nicolaou 1988; Webb and and appears in a number of forms only at this site (BrewsterFrankel 2001; Frankel and Webb 2007) have produced an 2007). Typical, too, are large Red Polished vessels withenormous number of pottery vessels now scattered across elaborate relief decoration, the use of very distinctivethe world. The associated settlement or settlements have decorative motifs and a range of unusual vessel forms. Thesenot yet been found. belong to an assertive local style and may be seen, like the The earliest burials date to the Early Bronze Age (c. tombs themselves, as part of a conscious construction of2400–2000 cal BC) and are relatively few in number. At community identity.least 764 chamber tombs, however, were constructed in There is at the same time a counter-current of variability.the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–1650 cal BC). They are This is most apparent on the common black-topped Redconsiderably larger than contemporary tombs elsewhere Polished ware small bowls. Although a limited repertoireand appear to have contained a higher number of burials of motifs was used to decorate these vessels, of the many(Frankel and Webb 2007, 149–151). Estimates of the total hundreds known no two are exactly alike. These differentMiddle Bronze Age mortuary population at Deneia range dimensions of ceramic production may be equated withfrom 9,000 to 20,000 (Frankel and Webb 2007, 152–154). higher level (corporate) and lower level (individual) motifNatural demographic increase is insufficient to account for and form variability, each of which is examined in morethe expansion of the cemeteries from the Early to the Middle detail below.Bronze Age. Rather, even the lowest figure suggested aboveimplies a major influx of people in Middle Cypriot I. Toward Crafting Corporate Identitythe end of the period, in late Middle Cypriot III, an equallyabrupt retraction of settlement led to the abandonment of A number of specific vessel forms and clusters of stylisticpartly constructed tombs and greatly reduced use of the attributes are unique to pottery produced and consumedcemeteries through to the end of the Late Bronze Age. at Deneia. These include globular bodied jugs with wide The rapid increase in population at Deneia in the early cutaway mouths (dubbed ‘monster jugs’ by Stewart 1962,years of the Middle Bronze Age is likely to have involved 304; 1988, 30–31) and large thick-walled serving bowlsthe aggregation of groups with links to a widespread (known as ‘Deneia basins’) probably used for extendednetwork of parent villages and to have required considerable gatherings associated with funerary ceremonial (Frankel andadjustment in many dimensions of social interaction and Webb 2007, 48–51, 154). Both vessel forms have elaboratenegotiation. The energy expended in tomb construction may decoration covering much of the surface, typically in boldmark attempts by newly arrived families to proclaim ties relief with additional incisions or impressions, and involveto non-ancestral burial grounds. Other aspects of material ‘eye-catching’ differences in size, form and decoration toculture are also likely to have been utilised in processes generically similar vessels from elsewhere (Fig. 21.1). Theof identity construction and the assertion of rights to Deneia cemeteries have also produced a number of eccentricplace. For subsequent generations family tombs and their and composite vessels (e.g. Webb and Frankel 2001, figscontents would have provided highly visible sites for the 12.50, 21.6; Stewart 1992, 33, pl. II.6, 9, unprovenancedaffirmation of claims to land and privileges as Deneia rose but surely from Deneia).to prominence in a wider regional system. Less ostentatious, but equally characteristic of local Red Polished, are a range of jug, juglet, askos and black-topped bowl forms found in large numbers at Deneia, occasionally at Lapithos, and only rarely elsewhere (Frankel and WebbThe Deneia Ceramic Assemblage 2007, 51–59, 154–155). Decorative forms and motifs areMiddle Bronze Age pottery production at Deneia shows equally distinctive. These include so-called ‘fretwork’contrasting dimensions of association and identity, of ornament, ring and ‘wheel’ motifs in relief, multiple piercedsimilarity and difference. At the broadest level linkages lugs and the use of heavily drawn concentric circles (Fig.to other villages are apparent in the general styles of Red 21.2). More generally, Deneia Red Polished is distinguishedPolished and the related but less common Black Polished by emphatic relief decoration, often bordering on the baroqueware. The closest parallels are with material from Lapithos, a (Stewart 1988, 105), and an abundant use of incised motifs176 Jennifer M. Webb

frequently covering the entire surface. Once established, these with eccentric and unique vessel forms, which suggestDeneia-specific type-varieties appear to have been repeatedly substantial local investment in ‘promotional technologies’replicated with variability expressed through subsidiary (Hayden 1995; 1998). Indeed, the link between style andelements such as lugs and feet. While local ceramic ideas social context is likely to be particularly important in theare evident elsewhere, this level of idiosyncratic production Deneia assemblage. While many vessels placed in tombsis not matched at any other Middle Cypriot site. had probably been in prior domestic service, some may Deneia vessel types, in particular ‘Deneia basins’ and have been specifically intended for ceremonial use (bothincised black-topped bowls, have been recovered from funerary and non-funerary). Community-specific potterynumerous tombs in both the Kafkalla and Mali cemeteries, designs are frequently most apparent in ritual depositsattesting a common array of mortuary practices and (Bartlett and McAnany 2000, 117), and the selection ofsignalling broad community affiliation rather than sub-group vessels for mortuary use is likely to reflect activities inrelationships based on individual households or lineages. which both community and sub-group affiliations wereThese elements of stylistic behaviour may be equated with clearly signalled.Wiessner’s concept of ‘emblemic style’ (1983) and Sackett’s‘iconological style’ (1982; 1985; 1986; 1990) in whichsymbolic variation is actively used to communicate identity Asserting Individuality: Variations on a Themeand send clear, purposeful, conscious messages aimed at Incised black-topped Red Polished bowls are a distinctivea specific target population, in this case both within and Middle Cypriot phenomenon at Deneia (Frankel andbeyond the settlement. Webb 2007, 58–59). They are far more common here than The use of style markers as referents of corporate identity elsewhere and are found in large numbers in individualdoes not, however, rule out the additional employment of